Monday, December 14, 2009
Check out Blastoff Network
You should check out this great site I joined called Blastoff Network. It's a customizable page that combines the best news, videos, music, and social networking with cash-back shopping from the biggest retailers such as Target, Best Buy, and Tiger Direct. Check out Blastoff Network at http://gotaf.socialtwist.com/redirect?l=72797991420742952051 or visit my Blastoff Homepage at http://gotaf.socialtwist.com/redirect?l=72797991420742952052
Saturday, December 12, 2009
ANALYSIS-U.S. Senate deal would knock health insurer profits - Forbes.com
ANALYSIS-U.S. Senate deal would knock health insurer profits - Forbes.com
* Deal calls for 90 cents of every dollar to go to care
* Wall Street says requirement would hamstring insurers
By Susan Heavey and Lewis Krauskopf
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A potential Senate health reform deal to force private health insurance companies to spend at least 90 cents of every dollar on medical costs would squeeze the industry's profits and shake up the way they do business.
Such a requirement may be a longshot to be enacted in Congress' final health reform legislation, but analysts say it would send shockwaves through the stocks if it became law.
The proposal, announced this week as part of a compromise between liberal and moderate Senate Democrats, would tighten rules on how insurers spend customers' premiums on doctor visits and hospital bills versus advertising, profits and salaries.
While few details emerged, the change to so-called medical loss ratio (MLR) stands to force insurers to make significant cuts to their operations.
"The bigger concern is whether private companies can even meet an 90 percent MLR and still function," said John Shepard, a senior healthcare analyst at Washington Research Group. Money not spent on care is critical not just for profits but also overhead and advertising against competitors, among other business costs.
President Barack Obama has made passing legislation to overhaul the nation's healthcare system a top priority, and Democrats have made the health insurance sector at top target for reforms.
Health insurers already would face a number of new constraints in the overall health bill, including an end to denying customers over pre-existing conditions as well as a ban on how much care patients can have covered in a lifetimes.
But the latest deal would cause a major shift. While most insurers see the bulk of their revenues from customer premiums, a few such as UnitedHealth Group Inc ( UNH - news - people ) have other service businesses. Other health insurance companies include Aetna Inc ( AET - news - people ) , Cigna Corp ( CI - news - people ) , Humana Inc ( HUM - news - people ) and Wellpoint Inc
"It would require a significant restructuring of how the current health industry does business," said Jason Gurda, a healthcare equities analyst at Leerink Swann.
Medical loss ratios are closely watched barometers on Wall Street. Fluctuations in the ratios may signal significant changes in profitability for a company.
When companies report quarterly results, it is not uncommon for a stock to sink if an insurer's medical loss ratio is higher than expected, meaning that medical costs ate into premiums more than projected.
A 90 percent MLR would significantly threaten profitability and curtail the insurers' ability to invest in areas such as technology to coordinate better medical care, Edward Jones analyst Steve Shubitz said.
"It's another way of basically saying there's a cap on your profitability, and no industry wants to operate under those conditions," he said.
The industry maintains that health insurers profits are far less than those seen in other healthcare sectors such as pharmaceuticals and cites disease management and other programs aimed at improving patient health as significant costs.
"While the expenses associated with these strategies are technically accounted for in administrative costs, they directly improve patient health outcomes and, ultimately, help reduce overall costs," America's Health Insurance Plans spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said earlier this week.
Analysts say private insurers currently spend roughly 80 to 85 cents on the dollar on patient care but that has fluctuated over the years.
The government-run Medicare and Medicaid insurance plans for the elderly, disabled and poor have spent about 90 cents and 87 cents on the dollar respectively, said Shepard, but "they don't have to advertise."
The House health bill passed last month calls for an MLR ratio of 85 cents. That legislation must still be merged with whatever the Senate passes before the provision would become law.
It's not clear whether the proposal will survive as the Senate Democrats work to finish up their bill by as early as next week or, if it does, whether certain qualifications are made to limit it to certain kinds of health insurance policies.
"I think it's absolutely not baked in at this point" to insurers' stocks, Shubitz said. "That would be a very severe limitation to their profitability going forward. If that were to happen, I think the stocks would react quite negatively." (Reporting by Susan Heavey and Lewis Krauskopf; editing by Carol Bishopric)
Copyright 2009 Reuters
Reuters
12.11.09, 04:28 PM ESTUSA-HEALTHCARE/INSURERS (ANALYSIS):ANALYSIS-U.S. Senate deal would knock health insurer profits
* Deal calls for 90 cents of every dollar to go to care
* Wall Street says requirement would hamstring insurers
By Susan Heavey and Lewis Krauskopf
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A potential Senate health reform deal to force private health insurance companies to spend at least 90 cents of every dollar on medical costs would squeeze the industry's profits and shake up the way they do business.
Such a requirement may be a longshot to be enacted in Congress' final health reform legislation, but analysts say it would send shockwaves through the stocks if it became law.
While few details emerged, the change to so-called medical loss ratio (MLR) stands to force insurers to make significant cuts to their operations.
"The bigger concern is whether private companies can even meet an 90 percent MLR and still function," said John Shepard, a senior healthcare analyst at Washington Research Group. Money not spent on care is critical not just for profits but also overhead and advertising against competitors, among other business costs.
President Barack Obama has made passing legislation to overhaul the nation's healthcare system a top priority, and Democrats have made the health insurance sector at top target for reforms.
Health insurers already would face a number of new constraints in the overall health bill, including an end to denying customers over pre-existing conditions as well as a ban on how much care patients can have covered in a lifetimes.
But the latest deal would cause a major shift. While most insurers see the bulk of their revenues from customer premiums, a few such as UnitedHealth Group Inc ( UNH - news - people ) have other service businesses. Other health insurance companies include Aetna Inc ( AET - news - people ) , Cigna Corp ( CI - news - people ) , Humana Inc ( HUM - news - people ) and Wellpoint Inc
"It would require a significant restructuring of how the current health industry does business," said Jason Gurda, a healthcare equities analyst at Leerink Swann.
Medical loss ratios are closely watched barometers on Wall Street. Fluctuations in the ratios may signal significant changes in profitability for a company.
When companies report quarterly results, it is not uncommon for a stock to sink if an insurer's medical loss ratio is higher than expected, meaning that medical costs ate into premiums more than projected.
A 90 percent MLR would significantly threaten profitability and curtail the insurers' ability to invest in areas such as technology to coordinate better medical care, Edward Jones analyst Steve Shubitz said.
"It's another way of basically saying there's a cap on your profitability, and no industry wants to operate under those conditions," he said.
The industry maintains that health insurers profits are far less than those seen in other healthcare sectors such as pharmaceuticals and cites disease management and other programs aimed at improving patient health as significant costs.
"While the expenses associated with these strategies are technically accounted for in administrative costs, they directly improve patient health outcomes and, ultimately, help reduce overall costs," America's Health Insurance Plans spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said earlier this week.
Analysts say private insurers currently spend roughly 80 to 85 cents on the dollar on patient care but that has fluctuated over the years.
The government-run Medicare and Medicaid insurance plans for the elderly, disabled and poor have spent about 90 cents and 87 cents on the dollar respectively, said Shepard, but "they don't have to advertise."
The House health bill passed last month calls for an MLR ratio of 85 cents. That legislation must still be merged with whatever the Senate passes before the provision would become law.
It's not clear whether the proposal will survive as the Senate Democrats work to finish up their bill by as early as next week or, if it does, whether certain qualifications are made to limit it to certain kinds of health insurance policies.
"I think it's absolutely not baked in at this point" to insurers' stocks, Shubitz said. "That would be a very severe limitation to their profitability going forward. If that were to happen, I think the stocks would react quite negatively." (Reporting by Susan Heavey and Lewis Krauskopf; editing by Carol Bishopric)
Copyright 2009 Reuters
Monday, November 30, 2009
A good look at State run Insurance
Florida insurance market still a house of cards despite slow hurricane season
By MICHAEL PELTIER
Sunday, November 29, 2009
TALLAHASSEE — As the 2009 hurricane season uneventfully draws to a close at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, insurers, regulators and state officials are looking ahead to bolster the house of cards that is Florida’s property insurance market.
Private insurers have had another year with no hurricanes, yet many remain on shaky financial ground as they weather non-hurricane losses and stormy investment markets that have hindered efforts to rebuild surpluses necessary to pay claims from the next big storm.
State regulators have begun to take action against financially vulnerable companies and ratchet up rates at the state-run insurance pool that has become the largest insurer of property in Florida.
Elected officials are eyeing what is politically possible in the short-term to fine-tune a statewide program that provides incentives for owners to hurricane-proof their homes and reduce the state’s exposure to a catastrophic hurricane.
Consumers, meanwhile, are seeing promises that rates would drop largely unfulfilled. Instead, they were more likely to see cancellation notices as insurers pull back or get shut down.
“We’ve gone down the road of cheap insurance,” said Jeff Grady, president and CEO of the Florida Association of Insurance Agents. “The key to having insurance is being able to pay the losses. … I think the cheap insurance crusade of our governor and others is wearing thin.”
Good news: No hurricanes
Looking back, the most obvious characteristic of the 2009 hurricane season was its relative calm.
The slow season couldn’t have come at a better time. Already cash strapped, lawmakers in May rolled back the state’s exposure to hurricane damage by reducing the upper limit of state responsibility by $2 billion. The shedding will continue for the next several years, with the state dropping all $12 billion in additional hurricane exposure by 2014.
Such a ceiling was theoretical at best because given the disastrous credit markets, state officials would have been able to use bonds to cover a $16 billion storm -- far from the $24 billion for which the state was on the hook.
National insurers pull back
Marked by a series of withdrawals and belt-tightening, 2009 wasn’t a banner year for expanding the state’s private insurance market.
Nationwide Insurance announced it wasn’t renewing 60,000 policies as it continued to lower its exposure in the state.
Regulators in October took over American Keystone Insurance Co., which was placed in receivership and liquidated following unsuccessful attempts to shore up the 2-year-old company that insured 7,618 policyholders.
“It speaks to how badly this market has been over-regulated,” Grady said. “Since the ‘05 hurricanes, (regulators) have dropped a few hundred pages of laws that have choked the life out of companies that have left and continue to hamper those that remain.”
While Florida regulators said enough is enough for American Keystone, they continue to work with State Farm Florida Insurance in efforts to keep the big insurer from packing its bags, a gauntlet it laid down in January after being denied rate increases it says it needs to handle the risk.
“Our financials were deteriorating even without a storm,” said Justin Glover, State Farm spokesman. “A storm would have just accelerated that decline. Our rates are still woefully inadequate.”
In recent weeks, negotiators from both sides have said they are optimistic that a compromise can be reached that would give the company some of the rate relief it says it needs and allowing it to trim its book of business and shed itself of riskier policies.
State Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, and chairman of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee, said lawmakers will focus next spring on again trying to make the Florida market more attractive to established insurance providers, including State Farm.
“There seems to be growing support for making it easier for well-capitalized companies to do business in this state,” Richter said.
Lawmakers also are likely to look at mitigation discounts given to homeowners who hurricane-proof their homes. The program, begun with much fanfare, has become unwieldy as the state tries to combat fraud and shrinking premiums.
“The wind mitigation credits have done what they were supposed to do, bring down the premium,” said Dan Dannenhauer, chairman of the Five County Insurance Agency. “The problem is, the premium is now lower than a low-loss year and loss ratios have skyrocketed.”
Citizens begins to reduce
While some insurers struggle to gain market share, the state’s largest property insurer is trying to get smaller.
With 1.1 million policyholders, state-run Citizens Property Insurance Corp. is taking steps to make its rates more actuarially sound and by doing so encourage private companies to re-enter the market. At least that’s the plan.
Earlier this year, lawmakers approved measures allowing Citizens to raise its rates. About 300,000 homeowners living in high-risk areas and getting their wind insurance from Citizens Property Insurance will see their rates increase 5.2 percent beginning in January. Commercial property owners will see rates climb about 9 percent.
The rate hikes are the first of many as Citizens phases in higher rates.
Policy-makers are trying to get rates back to where actuaries say they should be by allowing regulators to boost Citizens’ rates up to 10 percent a year. The effort, though too slow for critics, is at least a step in the right direction, local agents say.
“There is a good dialog now on what needs to be done,” said John Pollock, agency president for insurer BB&T-Oswald Trippe in Fort Myers. “Lawmakers are saying they can’t increase rates by 30 percent, even if that may need to be. Instead, they are saying, ‘Let’s think about the things we can do.”
Private insurers have had another year with no hurricanes, yet many remain on shaky financial ground as they weather non-hurricane losses and stormy investment markets that have hindered efforts to rebuild surpluses necessary to pay claims from the next big storm.
State regulators have begun to take action against financially vulnerable companies and ratchet up rates at the state-run insurance pool that has become the largest insurer of property in Florida.
Elected officials are eyeing what is politically possible in the short-term to fine-tune a statewide program that provides incentives for owners to hurricane-proof their homes and reduce the state’s exposure to a catastrophic hurricane.
Consumers, meanwhile, are seeing promises that rates would drop largely unfulfilled. Instead, they were more likely to see cancellation notices as insurers pull back or get shut down.
“We’ve gone down the road of cheap insurance,” said Jeff Grady, president and CEO of the Florida Association of Insurance Agents. “The key to having insurance is being able to pay the losses. … I think the cheap insurance crusade of our governor and others is wearing thin.”
Good news: No hurricanes
Looking back, the most obvious characteristic of the 2009 hurricane season was its relative calm.
The slow season couldn’t have come at a better time. Already cash strapped, lawmakers in May rolled back the state’s exposure to hurricane damage by reducing the upper limit of state responsibility by $2 billion. The shedding will continue for the next several years, with the state dropping all $12 billion in additional hurricane exposure by 2014.
Such a ceiling was theoretical at best because given the disastrous credit markets, state officials would have been able to use bonds to cover a $16 billion storm -- far from the $24 billion for which the state was on the hook.
National insurers pull back
Marked by a series of withdrawals and belt-tightening, 2009 wasn’t a banner year for expanding the state’s private insurance market.
Nationwide Insurance announced it wasn’t renewing 60,000 policies as it continued to lower its exposure in the state.
Regulators in October took over American Keystone Insurance Co., which was placed in receivership and liquidated following unsuccessful attempts to shore up the 2-year-old company that insured 7,618 policyholders.
“It speaks to how badly this market has been over-regulated,” Grady said. “Since the ‘05 hurricanes, (regulators) have dropped a few hundred pages of laws that have choked the life out of companies that have left and continue to hamper those that remain.”
While Florida regulators said enough is enough for American Keystone, they continue to work with State Farm Florida Insurance in efforts to keep the big insurer from packing its bags, a gauntlet it laid down in January after being denied rate increases it says it needs to handle the risk.
“Our financials were deteriorating even without a storm,” said Justin Glover, State Farm spokesman. “A storm would have just accelerated that decline. Our rates are still woefully inadequate.”
In recent weeks, negotiators from both sides have said they are optimistic that a compromise can be reached that would give the company some of the rate relief it says it needs and allowing it to trim its book of business and shed itself of riskier policies.
State Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, and chairman of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee, said lawmakers will focus next spring on again trying to make the Florida market more attractive to established insurance providers, including State Farm.
“There seems to be growing support for making it easier for well-capitalized companies to do business in this state,” Richter said.
Lawmakers also are likely to look at mitigation discounts given to homeowners who hurricane-proof their homes. The program, begun with much fanfare, has become unwieldy as the state tries to combat fraud and shrinking premiums.
“The wind mitigation credits have done what they were supposed to do, bring down the premium,” said Dan Dannenhauer, chairman of the Five County Insurance Agency. “The problem is, the premium is now lower than a low-loss year and loss ratios have skyrocketed.”
Citizens begins to reduce
While some insurers struggle to gain market share, the state’s largest property insurer is trying to get smaller.
With 1.1 million policyholders, state-run Citizens Property Insurance Corp. is taking steps to make its rates more actuarially sound and by doing so encourage private companies to re-enter the market. At least that’s the plan.
Earlier this year, lawmakers approved measures allowing Citizens to raise its rates. About 300,000 homeowners living in high-risk areas and getting their wind insurance from Citizens Property Insurance will see their rates increase 5.2 percent beginning in January. Commercial property owners will see rates climb about 9 percent.
The rate hikes are the first of many as Citizens phases in higher rates.
Policy-makers are trying to get rates back to where actuaries say they should be by allowing regulators to boost Citizens’ rates up to 10 percent a year. The effort, though too slow for critics, is at least a step in the right direction, local agents say.
“There is a good dialog now on what needs to be done,” said John Pollock, agency president for insurer BB&T-Oswald Trippe in Fort Myers. “Lawmakers are saying they can’t increase rates by 30 percent, even if that may need to be. Instead, they are saying, ‘Let’s think about the things we can do.”
© 2009 Scripps Newspaper Group — Online Thursday, November 26, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Government Insurance in Action
*If the Government does not have enough in reserves to pay claims, they just collect three years worth of premiums up front. And when that's gone, raise taxes again?*
« Why are Consumers Down if Production is Up? | Main | Can The FHA Avoid A Bailout Through Higher Premiums? »
Nov 13 2009, 2:50 pm by Daniel Indiviglio
FDIC Finalizes Forced Prepayment Of Insurance Fees
The Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) has finalized its plan to replenish its quickly drying up insurance fund by ordering banks to prepay their insurance fees through 2012. Back in September, when this plan was cited as possibility I criticized it, because I don't think now is the time to drain the fragile banking industry of $45 billion in cash. Through the accounting treatment of how these fees will be paid, they won't endanger banks' stability. But I think this is still a bad policy from an economic standpoint.
Here's one safeguard, via the Associated Press:
Moreover, what happens if those prepayments through 2012 aren't enough? Do they prepay more, now through 2014? 2018? Who knows? But this problem further demonstrates that this plan isn't the best solution.
Instead, the FDIC should just have requested a loan from the Treasury. From what I've read, FDIC Charwoman Sheila Bair was vehemently opposed to that, mostly for the sake of pride. That's absurd. A loan would have been the proper solution, because the banks would have paid this amount over three years as scheduled, allowing the FDIC to pay the Treasury back under that time frame as well. But in that scenario, lending would not have taken a hit when it could have helped the economic recovery.
Here's one safeguard, via the Associated Press:
The FDIC established an exemption process for banks that demonstrate that the prepaid premiums would "significantly" diminish their cash or "otherwise create extraordinary hardship."That's a pretty important exception. But even if banks' survival won't be threatened with the introduction of this forced prepayment, another aspect of the economy will:
"The prepaid assessment does come at a cost to the banking industry, impacting bank liquidity and reducing resources available for lending," James Chessen, chief economist of the American Bankers Association, said in a statement.Precisely. That $45 billion that the FDIC demands will result in possibly as much less in lending over the next few years. As I mentioned last week, credit is already unlikely to do enough in leading recovery, and this action is likely to make matters worse.
Moreover, what happens if those prepayments through 2012 aren't enough? Do they prepay more, now through 2014? 2018? Who knows? But this problem further demonstrates that this plan isn't the best solution.
Instead, the FDIC should just have requested a loan from the Treasury. From what I've read, FDIC Charwoman Sheila Bair was vehemently opposed to that, mostly for the sake of pride. That's absurd. A loan would have been the proper solution, because the banks would have paid this amount over three years as scheduled, allowing the FDIC to pay the Treasury back under that time frame as well. But in that scenario, lending would not have taken a hit when it could have helped the economic recovery.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Ballot question seeks reduction in insurance rates - The Oakland Press (theoaklandpress.com)
Ballot question seeks reduction in insurance rates - The Oakland Press (theoaklandpress.com)
By CHARLES CRUMM
Of The Oakland Press
News > Local News
Ballot question seeks reduction in insurance rates
Thursday, November 12, 2009By CHARLES CRUMM
Of The Oakland Press
A ballot proposal to overhaul Michigan home, auto and business insurance has insurers seeing red.
Wording of the proposal, approved by the state Board of Canvassers Monday, would have the effect of cutting insurance rates for autos, homes and businesses by 20 percent, and auto insurance an additional 20 percent for good drivers.
If approved, it would make it harder for insurers to do business in Michigan, says the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.
Some lawmakers are supporting the ballot issue since legislation to accomplish much the same thing was squashed in the state Senate in late October.
“It’s so radical,” said Ann Weber, vice president of state government relations for the PCIAA.
“It would completely revamp the way the insurance industry does business in Michigan,” Weber said. “It limits the types of products that can be offered. When you do that, there’s a greater likelihood that there’ll be less businesses that want to write in Michigan, which doesn’t benefit anyone at all.”
The ballot proposal was put forth by Lansing-based group Fair Affordable Insurance Rates. Legislation similar to the ballot proposal was defeated by the Republican-led Michigan Senate.
The action of the Board of State Canvassers Monday certified the wording on the ballot proposal, which gives organizers until May 26 to gather 304,101 valid signatures on petitions.
How insurers set rates is at the heart of the legislation that was defeated in a Senate committee and the wording of the ballot proposal.
For drivers, the proposal would set rates based on driving records and eliminate rate setting based on geographic area or credit scoring.
State Sen. Gilda Jacobs, D-Huntington Woods, was a sponsor of the legislation that failed in the Senate.
She notes that rates are much higher for residents in Detroit — a couple miles away — than for residents in her town.
“The feeling probably was, in order to make some changes, we’re going to have to go to a ballot proposal,” Jacobs said. “Redlining is a problem. It’s something I’m pretty sensitive to and we should try to force the hands of the insurance companies, one of the few businesses making a lot of money in this state.”
Changes in how insurers set rates have also been a priority for Detroit Democrat Sen. Martha Scott, who notes Detroiters pay rates five times higher than suburbanites for auto insurance.
How many proposals appear on the November ballot in 2010 depend on how successful groups are in gathering petition signatures.
Currently, there is only one ballot proposal qualified to appear on the Nov. 2, 2010, general election ballot. That’s the question that’s constitutionally-required every 16 years of whether the state should hold a constitutional convention.
Besides the insurance reform question, groups also are seeking to circulate petitions for two other ballot questions.
The Hazel Park-based group Racing to Save Michigan proposes a constitutional amendment to allow eight new casinos in Michigan, five of which would be located at horse racetracks.
And the Detroit-based Michigan Save Our Water Committee proposes a legislative initiative to regulate uranium mining.
Wording of the proposal, approved by the state Board of Canvassers Monday, would have the effect of cutting insurance rates for autos, homes and businesses by 20 percent, and auto insurance an additional 20 percent for good drivers.
If approved, it would make it harder for insurers to do business in Michigan, says the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.
Some lawmakers are supporting the ballot issue since legislation to accomplish much the same thing was squashed in the state Senate in late October.
“It’s so radical,” said Ann Weber, vice president of state government relations for the PCIAA.
“It would completely revamp the way the insurance industry does business in Michigan,” Weber said. “It limits the types of products that can be offered. When you do that, there’s a greater likelihood that there’ll be less businesses that want to write in Michigan, which doesn’t benefit anyone at all.”
The ballot proposal was put forth by Lansing-based group Fair Affordable Insurance Rates. Legislation similar to the ballot proposal was defeated by the Republican-led Michigan Senate.
The action of the Board of State Canvassers Monday certified the wording on the ballot proposal, which gives organizers until May 26 to gather 304,101 valid signatures on petitions.
How insurers set rates is at the heart of the legislation that was defeated in a Senate committee and the wording of the ballot proposal.
For drivers, the proposal would set rates based on driving records and eliminate rate setting based on geographic area or credit scoring.
State Sen. Gilda Jacobs, D-Huntington Woods, was a sponsor of the legislation that failed in the Senate.
She notes that rates are much higher for residents in Detroit — a couple miles away — than for residents in her town.
“The feeling probably was, in order to make some changes, we’re going to have to go to a ballot proposal,” Jacobs said. “Redlining is a problem. It’s something I’m pretty sensitive to and we should try to force the hands of the insurance companies, one of the few businesses making a lot of money in this state.”
Changes in how insurers set rates have also been a priority for Detroit Democrat Sen. Martha Scott, who notes Detroiters pay rates five times higher than suburbanites for auto insurance.
How many proposals appear on the November ballot in 2010 depend on how successful groups are in gathering petition signatures.
Currently, there is only one ballot proposal qualified to appear on the Nov. 2, 2010, general election ballot. That’s the question that’s constitutionally-required every 16 years of whether the state should hold a constitutional convention.
Besides the insurance reform question, groups also are seeking to circulate petitions for two other ballot questions.
The Hazel Park-based group Racing to Save Michigan proposes a constitutional amendment to allow eight new casinos in Michigan, five of which would be located at horse racetracks.
And the Detroit-based Michigan Save Our Water Committee proposes a legislative initiative to regulate uranium mining.
Blogged with the Flock Browser
Interesting take on the AARP
*NOTE* This is an opinion I have heard many times, it may be worth examining
Subject: AARP sells out seniors for big bucks
Subject: AARP sells out seniors for big bucks
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 7:12 PM
Subject: AARP sells out seniors for big bucks
  | |||||||||||||||
 Share on Facebook  Share on Twitter  Unsubscribe  Online Version | |||||||||||||||
AARP sells out seniors for big bucksNovember 9, 2009Dear Ronald, The AARP claims to be all about representing the interests of seniors, but when it comes to health care reform, they are selling seniors down the river to line their own pockets. The AARP has endorsed the gargantuan PelosiCare bill that just passed the House, despite the fact the bill proposes more than $400 billion in cuts to Medicare, which is certain to lead to rationing, inferior care and "death panels" for vulnerable senior citizens. Why? As they say, follow the money. PelosiCare will also cut Medicare Advantage by $170 billion. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to purchase private insurance with their Medicare payments, but these cuts will drive many of these seniors into inferior Medigap plans. AARP has a vested interest in seniors being driven out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans because AARP makes a fortune in royalty fees from Medigap plans. More than one-half of its $1.1 billion budget comes from such royalty fees, and Medigap plans make up the biggest share of this royalty revenue by far. The more seniors are forced out of Medicare Advantage into Medigap plans, the more money AARP makes. In other words, under PelosiCare, seniors lose but AARP wins - big time. Even the Washington Post noted the conflict of interest on Oct. 27, when it said, "Democratic proposals to slash reimbursements for...Medicare Advantage are widely expected to drive up demand for private Medigap policies like the ones offered by AARP." TAKE ACTION If you are an AARP member, we urge you to cancel your membership today. Their number is 1-888-687-2277. American Seniors Association (ASA) is an alternative we suggest you check out. AFA does not officially endorse ASA, but simply offers it as a conservative alternative to AARP. By the way, ASA is offering any senior that sends in a torn AARP card a special deal that provides them with a two-year membership for the price of one year.
It is very important that you forward this alert to your friends and family members.
| |||||||||||||||
| Action Link * |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
