Search results matching tag 'insurance'

Cause of death? Lack of insurance

Karen Datko — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:59:00 GMT

A new Harvard study estimates that nearly 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health insurance -- and that's after other factors like income and unhealthy behaviors are taken into account.

"Deaths associated with lack of health insurance now exceed those caused by many common killers such as kidney disease," an article by the Cambridge Health Alliance reports.

The study says the uninsured have a 40% higher risk of death than people who have private health insurance -- like the insurance you get through your job. Or, to put it another way, a person dies because of a lack of insurance every 12 minutes.

Of course, some people neglect their health. But many, we suspect, don't see a doctor because they're afraid of the cost. Doctor visits and tests can add up to an intimidating amount, even if you're uninsured but have a good income. A CNN story put a human face on some of these avoidable deaths -- a freelance cameraman, a self-employed mother of two, and a 25-year-old woman who worked in a movie theater.

So we had to wonder: Have you put off visits to the doctor because of financial considerations?

Overall, 15.4% of Americans don't have health insurance. The study breaks it down state by state, (.pdf file). For example:

In Texas, where just under 30% of people lacked insurance in 2005, annual deaths attributed to being uninsured was 4,675.
Here in Montana, the percentage of uninsured was 19.4%, and 147 people paid the ultimate price.
In Florida, where 26% were uninsured, the death toll attributed to lack of insurance was 3,925.

Also consider that the number of deaths blamed on lack of insurance is 2.5 times higher than it was in 2002, due to several factors. The study found that:

More people are uninsured. The U.S. Census said 46.3 million people were uninsured last year -- and since then millions of people have lost jobs.
The safety net for the uninsured has larger holes, as nonprofit hospitals and clinics have closed.
The quality of care for those with insurance has improved. "We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease -- but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications," Dr. Andrew Wilper, lead author of the study, said.

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study, told Reuters. Himmelstein and his wife, study co-author Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, founded Physicians for a National Health Program.

Related reading:

A survival guide for the uninsured

It's not health care reform unless ...

How to fix health care

Look abroad for cheaper health care

Survey: Driving while texting should be illegal

Karen Datko — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:26:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

The vast majority of U.S. drivers believes handheld texting while driving is very dangerous and should be banned nationwide, according to a new survey.

The survey, conducted by Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates on behalf of the Ford Motor Co., found that 86% of U.S. drivers believe handheld texting while driving is "very dangerous" and 93% support a nationwide ban on it.

Bing: Which states ban driving while texting?

At the same time, only 42% of those asked think drivers would stop texting behind the wheel if the practice were banned. However, more than 75% say there would be more compliance if hands-free or voice-activated technologies were widely available.

"Research shows that activity that draws drivers' eyes away from the road for an extended period while driving, such as text messaging, substantially increases the risk of accidents," said Jim Vondale, director of Ford's Automotive Safety Office. "That is why we support a nationwide ban on handheld texting while driving and why Ford has developed hands-free and voice-activated technologies to allow drivers to remain connected, but to do so while keeping their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road."

Ford last week endorsed a proposed nationwide ban on handheld texting introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, both New York Democrats.

The survey shows that 67% of drivers said they believe voice-activated technology is a safe alternative to texting, and 76% said it would be an appealing feature in a car.

The survey results come as the U.S. Department of Transportation is scheduled to host a summit on driver distraction in Washington, D.C.

According to the survey, there is confusion among drivers over existing state laws prohibiting handheld cell phone use and/or texting while driving. A total of 18 states have enacted such bans, but nearly 40% of drivers in those states indicated they were unaware of the ban.

Research on driving solutions

According to an NHTSA-sponsored 100-car study conducted by Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, driver inattention that may involve looking away from the road for more than a few seconds is a factor in nearly 80% of accidents.

"A growing number of drivers are using handheld wireless communications and music-playing devices while driving," said Louis Tijerina, Ford senior technical specialist. "Research clearly shows that manual operation of those devices that takes the driver's eyes from the road for an extended period of time creates the kind of distraction that causes accidents."

In addition, said Jeff Greenberg, senior technical leader for Ford Research & Advanced Engineering, "Our studies show that teens are much more willing to take risks while driving, such as manually dialing on a mobile phone in situations that demand greater attention."

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

New insight into cell phone use and driving distraction

Feds withheld data on cell phone dangers

Cell phone conversations district drivers, study finds

Got bunions? No insurance for you

Karen Datko — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:10:00 GMT

We knew that health insurance companies refuse to sell individual policies to people who've had cancer or hypertension. But acne or bunions -- or working in a first-responder job?

Insurance company documents obtained and made public by Consumer Watchdog indicate how far some insurers will go to limit individual coverage to only the healthiest people (and those with the safest jobs). A hangnail? You'll get coverage. Toenail fungus? Perhaps not.

This is news because health care reform intends to prohibit insurance companies from denying individual coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or setting the price beyond most people's grasp.

The insurance companies whose internal documents were disclosed either wouldn't comment or observed that the documents were several years old -- and declined to say whether they'd been updated, The Washington Post said.

You can read the documents, all .pdf files, by clicking here, here, here and here.

Some examples: You could be denied coverage if you:

Work as a police officer, firefighter, stunt person, test pilot, logger, rodeo performer, or migrant, utility or circus worker (the big tent could come falling down, or maybe an elephant could get loose).
Are pregnant, are an expectant father or are going to adopt.
Take common prescription drugs like Allegra, Advair and Lamisil, the toenail fungus drug.
Have chronic tonsillitis, varicose veins, acne (Accutane-free for less than six or 12 momths), hemorrhoids, bunions, asthma, arthritis, ADD or silicone breast implants.
Have gotten therapy or counseling within the last six months, or "currently experiencing/experienced within the last 12 months symptoms for which a physician has not been consulted."

About that last one, Michael Santo wrote at Huliq.com:

Based on the horror stories of people who have their coverage revoked when an insurance company finds some condition they neglected to tell them about, this could be taken to the extreme: "Sorry, Mr. Johnson, you forgot to tell us about that runny nose you had in March."

What do you think? Jeff Rosenberg at MNpublius offers this opinion:

Whatever ultimately happens with health care reform, we at least need to end this nonsense. Without health insurance, millions of Americans are unable to afford proper medical treatment. So how could it make any sense to deny access to insurance just because a prospective client has heartburn?

Related reading:

Buy your own health plan

America's health insurance crisis

Your 5-minute guide to health insurance

Fantasy football insurance? Oh, please

Karen Datko — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:00:00 GMT

One of the pleasures of reading Sports Illustrated is the brief weekly feature called "Sign of the Apocalypse."

We think SI nailed it with this "sign": "A Long Island company is offering insurance to fantasy football owners that allows them to recoup their league fees if a player on their team gets hurt."

Could anyone possibly think this is a good idea? Let's see.

Bing: Fantasy football rankings

Factors to consider:

Darren Rovell of CNBC wrote that Tom Brady's season-ending injury in New England's first game last year may have cost those with Brady on their fantasy team $150 million overall. The company, Fantasy Sports Insurance, links to that article at its Web site.
Only 50 players in the entire NFL are eligible for coverage with FSI. (Hey! Big Ben's not on that list, Darren says. Why? One of the factors considered for eligibility is a previous history of injury, according to the site.)
You can cover one player, or you can bundle two or three.
The cost is 10% of the amount of coverage you buy, which can equal your league entry fee, transaction fees and miscellaneous stuff like subscriptions you buy to stay on top of your game.

Is this a good idea? The FSI Web site says: "NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA team owners purchase disability coverage on their KEY PLAYERS. Why shouldn't you?" Answer: Real owners have a lot on the line, but, fans, your risk is teeny tiny. And besides, isn't this about fun, not covering your financial backside?

Here's what insurance is for: to protect yourself in case of a real catastrophe. Health insurance we all need. Cancer can wipe you out. This? Way? No way.

Other bloggers have offered their opinions:

Dashiell Bennett wrote at Deadspin, "If you're investing more money than you can afford to lose on the outcome of Peyton Manning's passing yardage, then you're probably in a little too deep."
Ray Ratto said at CBS Sports: "And if you want to take the fun out of bad luck by smugly looking at your pals and going, ‘No sweat. I'm covered,' you deserve an eternity tied to a heated chair and staring into the disturbingly googly eyes of the Progressive Insurance woman."
What's a better way to protect your fantasy football investment? Matt Snyder at Fanhouse said he kinda likes the insurance idea, but added: "True insurance against a season-marring injury to one of your best players is by filling your team with good players."

For more about this, check out this article at The Wall Street Journal (written before the two-player package was introduced).

What are your thoughts?

Related reading:

5 personal-finance lessons from NASCAR

The NFL's Bernie Madoff

Cowboys top NFL value rankings at $1.65 billion

HMOs beat PPOs in new survey

Karen Datko — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:12:00 GMT

This post comes from James Limbach at partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

With the battle over health care reform likely to last well into the fall, a new survey suggests that a lot of consumers are ready for some changes.

People who took part in the latest Consumer Reports survey say median annual out-of-pocket costs for premiums increased by 38% in the past two years, and only 64% of those surveyed were "very" or "completely" satisfied with their current health insurance plan.

"That's a lukewarm response and a slight drop from the 67% in our 2007 report," said Mandy Walker, senior project editor for CR. "In terms of services we rate, that puts satisfaction with health insurance above satisfaction with cable TV, a perennial whipping post, but below pharmacies and real estate agents."

Eighty-four percent of the 37,481 magazine subscribers who reported their experiences over the course of a year were in an employer-based plan, which they could keep under most health reform proposals now before Congress.

Annual out-of-pocket costs for plan premiums were up 38% from two years ago for both those in health-maintenance organizations and preferred-provider organizations. Respondents to the survey conducted by the Consumer Reports National Research Center reported a median premium cost of $1,829, an increase of about $500 since 2006.

The survey results also indicate that choosing an HMO over a PPO seems like a smarter choice than in the past. While overall satisfaction scores were similar, respondents in HMOs paid less for premiums than people in PPOs ($1,466 compared with $2,003) and less out-of-pocket on their medical bills. Among PPO members who were seriously ill, 69% paid $1,000 or more on bills, while only 47% of seriously ill people in HMOs spent that much.

In the past, HMO members who were seriously ill had more trouble getting access to care, but this time there was little difference: Of HMO members who were ill, 15% had problems getting care, compared with 14% of PPO members.

Problems with service

People in PPOs had more trouble with their bills. Overall, 24% of people in PPOs had a billing problem, while just 11% of HMO members had similar issues. Moreover, 33% of PPO members who reported having a serious illness had billing problems versus just 14% of seriously ill HMO patients.

Twenty percent of PPO members also said they had trouble with telephone customer support and were more likely to contact the plan several times to get a problem solved, versus 12% of those in HMOs.

For the first time, Consumer Reports asked subscribers about using plan Web sites to seek information, forms, and customer support. HMOs came out on top again, and had top-notch scores for ease of navigation, easy access to forms, and online help.

Rating the plans

Respondents' experiences with their health insurance were far better if they were enrolled in plans at the top of CR's ranking. Only 4% of respondents had problems getting the care they needed in higher-rated plans.

Eighteen percent of those surveyed said they had trouble getting to see a plan doctor at some point during the year. Among users of some lower-rated plans, as many as 16% complained it was either difficult or impossible to get needed care.

Among HMOs, Group Health Cooperative and Health Alliance Plan topped the list and were also in the top 10 in the 2006 survey. Members of these plans reported fewer problems getting the care they needed, and HAP members were more satisfied with their choice of doctors and the care they received.

Rounding out the top rated for HMOs were several Kaiser Permanente plans around the country, Preferred Care, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Independent Health.

At the bottom of the HMO list, Oxford Health Plan and Aetna Health HMO members gave the plans lower ratings for choice of providers. Oxford members also reported more problems getting the care they needed, while Aetna plan members reported more problems getting access to doctors.

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut was among the top-rated PPOs, as it has been in past surveys. Members remain very pleased with their providers and care they received. Other top-rated plans include Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Alabama, Illinois and Massachusetts), Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield (New York), and Independence Blue Cross (Pennsylvania). GHI (Group Health Inc.), Great-West Healthcare and Health Net members rated choice of doctors in those plans worse than other PPOs.

How to choose

Picking the right plan depends on many factors, including health conditions, whether specific doctors participate in a plan, and what the employer offers:

Try an HMO if cost is key. Compare coverage costs from the past 12 months with the total possible cost of monthly premiums, deductibles, co-pays or co-insurance, and prescription costs of other available plans.
Not willing to switch doctors? For consumers who want to continue seeing providers who are not members of an available HMO, a PPO plan might be better. The HMO might pay very little, if anything, for nonplan providers.
Check Consumers Reports' ratings.
Get a report card. For plans not in CR's ratings, check out NCQA's Web site. The site, which is partially funded by the insurance industry, provides report cards on 55 PPOs and 404 HMOs.
Consider health issues. Patients with chronic conditions may run into shortcomings in either kind of health plan. Look for one with disease-management programs for specific conditions.
Check complaints. Call your state's department of insurance to see whether current members have logged complaints against the plan.
Plan ahead for changes. For example, if having children is in your plan, keep that in mind when selecting a plan; look for one that pays for prenatal care and well-baby visits.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Study claims health insurance market fails consumers

Antidepressant use increasing in the U.S.

Job cuts rise following 15-month low

No health insurance? Not good

Karen Datko — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:08:00 GMT

In recognition of the national debate over health care reform, which is about to move front and center, here are two brief histories of bloggers without health insurance.

One is about David, who decided to go without. The other is the story of Leanne at Mrs. Bankrupt, who recently penned a three-part series called "Sick? No insurance. No doctor. You're screwed."

We'll start with David at Goliath Debt, David Income, who was so focused on paying down his colossal debt that he skimped when he shouldn't have -- his wife and his newborn baby aren't insured and it's proven to be quite costly.

First, there were complications during the delivery. "To make matters worse, my wife had an eclamptic seizure on Monday afternoon, something that happens in only rare cases after the birth," he said in a post called "I gambled, and I lost. Big time." "An ambulance ride, three additional nights in the hospital, and thousands of dollars later, I arrive at the end of this week not really knowing where to go from here."

The hospital presented two options for paying the bill. "They said I could either put it on a credit card, and they would give me a discount (about 70%), or they could allow me to send in whatever I could, but it would be for the full amount, and at 18% interest," he wrote. The discounted amount is on his credit card, at 15% interest. Doctors' bills aren't included.

Leanne was undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments for a Stage 3 cancer 10 years ago when her husband's business went bust and her health insurance went with it. The marriage failed, the medical bills piled up and she eventually wound up in bankruptcy court.

At the time, she said, "Nearly all the unenlightened told me about the ‘can't-turn-you-down' program my state offered. Based on two kinds of cancer, two life-threatening blood clots, and a latent heart problem, my ‘can't-turn-you-down' premium (would have been) $774 a month AND covered NO preventative care (like the very scans I needed to track any reoccurrences)."

With five kids to feed and limited child support, she simply couldn't afford it.

She's still without health insurance, and the bills are mounting again. "Being uninsured for a healthy person is, I am sure, difficult. Being uninsured for a person who needs 10K a year in scans, blood work, thyroid medicine, and has a low immune system is beyond difficult," she wrote.

David's decision not to insure his family did not go unnoticed in the personal-finance blogosphere.

"He took a gamble without health insurance and is now going to pay through the nose," wrote "LAL" at Living Almost Large. "... I am guessing they are in their 20s, great health, never see the doctor, had an uneventful pregnancy and figured, what could happen?"

"Dog" at Dog Ate My Finances also read David's story. She knew that when she became unemployed, she needed to be insured but faced a complicated decision. She had the choice of an expensive COBRA (the family income is too high for her to qualify for the federal subsidy) or individual health insurance that would exclude her asthma.

She wrote: "I could really use some help here. I feel like I have no idea what I am doing in the wild west of individual health care plans. The fact that I even have to make this choice -- $1,200/month for COBRA, or $200/month with no asthma coverage -- pretty much makes me want to cry." Readers offered lots of advice. You can read about the outcome here.

Related reading:

America's health insurance crisis

Study: 60% of bankruptcies caused by health care costs

Buy your own health plan

10 things your hospital won't tell you

Bill would ban DWT

Karen Datko — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:57:00 GMT

Sorry, folks, but sometimes lawmakers do need to legislate against stupidity. Is there no better example than DWT -- driving while texting?

We weren't surprised that some of our readers found it difficult to believe that talking on a cell phone -- handheld or hands-free -- is more distracting to a driver than talking to a person who is sitting in the car. But could anyone really think that DWT is safe?

Common sense screams that it's not, and the newest evidence just confirms the obvious. Surely you've read about the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute study that found that a driver who is texting is 23 times more likely to crash or have a near crash than drivers who are actually paying attention to the road. Also, according to The New York Times:

In the moments before a crash or near crash, drivers typically spent nearly five seconds looking at their devices -- enough time at typical highway speeds to cover more than the length of a football field.

Equipped with this new information, four U.S. senators have introduced a bill that would require states to ban driving while texting or e-mailing within two years or lose a quarter of their federal highway funds "each year until the money was depleted," The New York Times says.

Only 14 states and the District of Columbia consider DWT a traffic offense right now. And the penalty is often so low -- $20 or so -- that many people likely don't take it seriously.

So far, the Governors Highway Safety Association has said it doesn't like the bill. "We oppose sanctioning states since there is not yet a proven effective method for enforcing a texting or cell phone ban," association spokesman Jonathan Adkins told the NYT.

But that group agrees that driving while texting is a disaster in the making. In fact:

Drunken driving may be safer. A Car and Driver experiment -- not very scientific but it made a point -- indicated that drunken drivers have much better reaction time than sober drivers who are typing or reading a text message, The New York Times' Wheels Blog reports. (The Car Tech blog has more on that.)
It's quite common. In a recent survey, 26% of cell phone users admitted that they text while driving, Car Tech says. (ATX Group plans to sell hands-free texting that uses speech recognition technology, but that's still a distraction, no?)

"If your time is so valuable that you would risk the lives of those around you while propelling a 3,000-pound piece of metal down the road at 60mph, then you need to hire a chauffeur," wrote Ed Hansberry at InformationWeek.

Related reading:

Feds withheld data on cell phone hazard

Should driving while texting be a crime?

How to deal with distracted drivers

Does your neighbor’s pet cost you?

Karen Datko — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:56:00 GMT

This guest post comes from "vh" at Funny about Money.

How much do you figure your neighbor's dog (cat, parrot, boa constrictor, tame alligator) costs you? I have to say, I expect my own pets to be destructive and figure the repair bills to be part of the cost of doing business. But one thing we tend not to budget for is the depredations of other people's critters.

While M'hijito's roommate was in Singapore visiting his relatives and hustling for a job, he left his brand-new Infiniti parked in the driveway (Roommate is the scion of a ridiculously wealthy family).

Quick backstory: Some time back, Roommate became enamored of a cat belonging to the old guy who lives in the house behind M'hijito's place. He took to feeding and watering the beast, much to M'hijito's disgust (it uses the vegetable garden as its litter box), and he has thought of it as "his" cat. In his absence, the cat has taken up residence on top of the Infiniti, where it sleeps at night, out of reach of hunting coyotes and stray pit bulls.

So the other day as M'hijito was headed out to work, he noticed a couple of brown mounds on top of the Infiniti. On closer inspection ... oops! Cat mounds!

The cat had deposited two large piles of cat poop on the brand-new silver Infiniti's roof. Unknown how long they'd been there, but in 115-degree heat, it doesn't take long for such a substance to bake to perfection. With Roommate due to surface soon, M'hijito drove the car to a commercial car wash. This removed the mound, but, well, the paint beneath it was etched and permanently stained.

So, that brand-new car is going to need a paint job. Hope Roommate's insurance will cover it. Meow!

As I write this, Inez and Carlos the Knife's demented dog is running loose in their front yard, once again threatening to eviscerate all comers. I see that their new next-door neighbors, the present and blessed occupants of the former Dave's Used Car Lot, Marina, and Weed Arboretum, managed to dodge inside the house before the dog could catch them between their car and their front door.

Carlos, who is coming onto 90, has a little senility problem. Whenever Inez, who still has all her marbles, turns her back, Carlos sneaks over to the front door and lets the dog out. Once free, it lurks around their front yard but refuses to be caught -- reasonably so, because Carlos is given to whacking it with his belt. From the front yard, it chases young children, bicyclists, and postal carriers up and down the street. Fortunately, the mail came before this afternoon's fugue.

This antic, too, has its expenses. In addition to the potential for medical bills and lawsuits, the last time the hound got out, the post office declared our entire block terra incognita. They refused to deliver the mail to anyone until the dog was locked up or hauled off to the pound (whence it came). And they challenged us all to call the county animal control officers. It took about a week to get our mail delivery restarted, by which time my AmEx bill was running late. I had to pay American Express for the privilege of paying my bill electronically, something that made me stabby, very stabby.

But maybe I have no sense of humor.

One of my students suffered permanent injuries when an idiot's dog, allowed to run free by the idiot, attacked her as she was jogging down the street in front of her house. She managed to fight it off with several hard, well-aimed kicks (she was a tall, athletic young woman), but it ripped a tendon in her leg and damaged a nerve, which never healed properly.

And neighbor Al carries a shillelagh around with him when he walks his little dog, after one of the "pets" of the moron 125-pound lady who owns three pit bulls and a retrieveroid dug out from under her fence and attacked him and his little pooch. She paid the vet bill occasioned by sewing the small dog's throat back together. Generous of her, eh? Same cur gives Cassie the evil eye every time we encounter the woman and her Iditarod team dragging her down the road.

Sometimes I wonder what possesses people who think their animals are their kiddies, and who imagine the rest of us don't mind dodging their free-roaming dogs and having their cats defecate and urinate all over our yards (and cars).

How much has your neighbor's pet cost you? Can you beat a new automotive paint job?

Related reading at Funny about Money:

Pit bulls, dog fights, and real estate

How I spent $48,346.36 on my dogs

How much is that doggie in the window?

Study faults individual health insurance

Karen Datko — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:33:00 GMT

This post comes from partner site ConsumerAffairs.com.

One objective of health care legislation pushed by President Obama is universal coverage -- providing health insurance options for all Americans. The question, of course, is how to do it.

Backers of the so-called government option, in which a Medicare-like policy competes with private insurers, can point to a new study by The Commonwealth Fund. The study found that 73% of people who tried to buy insurance on their own in the last three years did not purchase a policy, primarily because premiums were too high.

In addition, among adults with individual coverage or those who tried to buy coverage in the past three years:

57% said it was very difficult or impossible to find coverage they could afford.
47% said it was very difficult or impossible to find a plan with the coverage they needed.
36% were denied coverage or charged more because of a pre-existing condition, or the condition was excluded from their coverage.

The report, "Failure to Protect: Why the Individual Insurance Market Is Not a Viable Option for Most U.S. Families," compared the experiences of working-age adults with individual and employer-based private health insurance and found that people who have purchased health insurance in the individual market spend far more out-of-pocket and on premiums than those with employer-based coverage.

In fact, half of those with individual insurance have out-of-pocket costs and premium expenses that equal 10% or more of their income. People with individual coverage do not have premium contributions from employers, and many are charged higher premiums because of their health status or age. According to the report, 64% of adults with individual insurance spend $3,000 or more per year on premiums, while only 20% of those with employer insurance spend that much. On average, adults with employer plans spend $2,250 out-of-pocket for health expenses including premiums, while those with individual insurance spend an average of $6,750.

"In our current system, millions of people without access to employer coverage have no affordable option for health insurance," said Commonwealth Fund president Karen Davis. "To achieve a health care system that works for all Americans, we need health care reform that offers comprehensive, affordable health insurance to everyone regardless of their health status, premium subsidies to help families with low and moderate incomes afford health insurance, and requirements to ensure that no one is denied health insurance because of a health problem."

Experiences in the individual market

The Commonwealth Fund says those who are able to purchase individual health insurance are more likely to face a host of problems with their insurance, including going without prescription drug coverage, limits on the total dollar amount their insurance will pay for health care, doctors charging more than insurance will pay and being forced to pay the difference, and expensive bills that their insurance will not cover.

In addition, 41% of individually insured adults reported forgoing needed health care because of costs -- up from 24% in 2001. More than one-third of those with individual coverage (36%) also reported medical bill or debt problems, a substantial increase over the 28% who also reported medical bill or debt problems in 2005.

"People buying their own health insurance are paying significantly more in premiums than those with employer-based coverage, but are getting less for their money in terms of protection against high costs and access to the health care they need," said study co-author and Commonwealth Fund vice president Sara Collins. "It is critical that health reform proposals set minimum benefit standards and provide adequate premium subsidies to ensure that families who lose their job-based benefits can purchase affordable coverage that gives them access to timely care and protects them from catastrophic health care costs."

The large majority of Americans who have individual coverage are unemployed, self-employed, or employed by firms with fewer than 20 workers -- one-third are unemployed, and 50% are self-employed or employed by small firms.

People with individual insurance also tend to be older, with the majority between the ages of 50 and 64, according to the report. Families with low and moderate incomes have the hardest time affording insurance on the individual market: 85% of those at or below 200% of the federal poverty level who sought an individual health insurance plan did not end up purchasing one, and of that group, 67% cited cost as the reason they didn't purchase a plan.

Related reading at ConsumerAffairs.com:

Chase continues to tighten consumer credit

Emerson College to reimburse students over loan advice

Texas curbs acai berry supplement maker

What to expect in traffic court

Karen Datko — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 12:53:00 GMT

This post comes from Jim Wang at partner blog Bargaineering.

I had the great pleasure of going to traffic court recently. Yay!

I was there to contest a ticket for making an improper left turn through a red light. The ticket was for $90 and I'm unsure how many points it would've been, but an improper turn costs one point and failure to stop at a red is two points. Do I get both, or just the worse of the two? I wasn't sure, but I knew points usually mean my insurance would go up and I wanted to avoid that at all costs.

Note: Everything contained in this article is based on my experience in a Maryland courtroom and with Maryland procedures, specifically Howard County District Court. The process and rules may be different in your jurisdiction.

Traffic court process

The process is very simple. The court schedules cases on a docket, which is a list of all the cases it will hear, every hour. You should appear in court about 15 minutes to a half hour before your session is scheduled to begin.

The judge calls your name, you announce you're present and walk up to the defendant's table. The judge reads the charge against you and asks how you plead. Here's where you have three options:

Not guilty. If the officer isn't there, there is no one to testify against you, so always plead not guilty. The officer, if present, will be standing there at the other table, so it's clear when he or she is not there. If you plead not guilty, there will be a brief trial.
Guilty. You're admitting that you are guilty and are now at the mercy of the judge. If it's a minor offense and you have a clean record, you will often get "probation before judgment" (more on that below).
Guilty with explanation. You are admitting that you are guilty and are now at the mercy of the judge, but you can give a limited explanation. Unless it's a medical emergency -- and you'll need proof of that, like a signed letter -- chances are you are out of luck.

Court strategy

When you go to court, you're hoping that the officer doesn't show up. When I was there, my case was the sixth or seventh case. The first case up was a young woman doing more than 20 miles per hour over the speed limit, and she was the only one to luck out -- her officer didn't show. For every case I saw after that, an officer was present. The cases are scheduled so that officers can be present for a large number of their contested tickets.

The officer who issued my ticket had about 20 or 25 cases that day, so he wasn't missing it. He was a county police officer. The ones with only one or two cases that day were all state troopers.

Outside of hoping the officer doesn't show, you're hoping mostly for leniency and probation before judgment. In probation before judgment, the judge will not enter a guilty disposition/ruling, will still fine you (or reduce the fine), and will not assess points. It's your one free pass every three years. If your record is clean and the offense is minor, judges will usually grant you this.

The trial

It sounds fancy but trial is very informal in traffic court. The officer will tell his story, you will be given the opportunity to ask questions, and then you tell your side of the story. Then the judge renders a decision.

In my case, the offense occurred near the end of January, and I believe my officer's memory was questionable. However, I wasn't any better. I had made a left turn when the light was yellow, and I believe the officer made a judgment call about my turning on red. I remembered that he was in the opposing lane of traffic and didn't have a clear line of sight to the light.

Unfortunately, he testified that he was behind me, which threw me for a loop, and I couldn't be certain, so I didn't contest that (a mistake). He also called my car a Toyota GT, rather than Toyota Celica (GT). I probably should've contested that (another mistake).

My only defense was that the intersection was monitored by a red light camera and I wasn't issued a ticket. That didn't fly in court.

In the end, the verdict was probation before judgment. My fine was reduced from $90 to $45, and no points were assessed. After court fees of $25.50, I paid $70.50. I saved $19.50 and one to three points, and the whole process took less than an hour. I chalk that up as a win.

In one case, a driver was going 105 in a posted 65 mph speed zone. He had no explanation and was hoping the officer wouldn't show up. When asked if he had any prior incidents, he said he couldn't remember, yet he actually had one just last year.

He had no strategy beyond hoping the officer wasn't there, then wasn't truthful with the judge, and so he had to pay a fine of more than $500, plus five points. The judge even stated that he failed to be "candid" with the court, so always tell the truth because they already know the answer.

Lessons learned

Always contest. While I was nervous being in court (first time ever), I thought it was a great learning experience. Law is very much about technicalities and preparation, so use all of it to your advantage. Also, it's important to ask the officer questions or contest his testimony if you think he got it wrong. I should've recognized he was reading from a script and not recalling the events. That was my mistake and I'll know for next time. Fortunately it was a small mistake.

The impact on your insurance may be minor. After the ticket, I e-mailed my insurance agent and asked about the impact on my insurance. She told me that chances are the underwriters wouldn't even know about it unless I made a major change to my policy, and even then, it would be less than $10 more per six months. That's one of the benefits of dealing with a local agent rather than a faceless insurance corporation.

Do you have any advice?

Related reading at Bargaineering:

Bank CD rates

5 things to do before you start working

What is the average credit score?