Kentucky is following Maryland's lead to require Wal-Mart to spend more on health insurance for employees.
A bill before Kentucky's general assembly would require employers with 10,000 or more workers to spend at least eight percent of their payrolls on health insurance or pay the difference into a state medicaid fund.
Friday, Maryland's legislature voted to override the governor's veto to pass a nearly identical bill.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
Should Wal-Mart Offer Better Health Insurance?
ABC News
Jan. 12, 2006 — Some are calling it the Wal-Mart bill.
The Maryland General Assembly is poised to make its state the first in the nation to require that large corporations — like Wal-Mart — provide more health care to their employees.
Votes are expected within hours to override a gubernatorial veto of a measure that mandates that companies with more than 10,000 employees spend 8 percent of their payroll on health care costs. In Maryland only one company fits that description: Wal-Mart. Some business interests see this move as nothing more than a backdoor effort by Democrats and union leaders to bring about a national health care system.
For some Wal-Mart workers, though, the bill's passage could help them get out of a troubling situation.
Cynthia Murry, a five-year Wal-Mart employee told ABC News, "I have no health coverage, at all."
Murray believes she may be risking her job by speaking out and claims many of her fellow employees agree with her position that Wal-Mart should provide more health care benefits.
A coalition of union and health care organizations have pushed for the Fair Share Health Care Act. They claim that businesses and taxpayers have to subsidize the health care costs of uninsured workers through higher premiums and higher Medicaid costs.
"If an uninsured person who works at, say, Wal-Mart goes to the hospital, can't pay their bill, as many times they can't, everybody else's premiums go up to cover that hospitalization," said Vincent DeMarco of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative.
Wal-Mart says its Maryland employees can get coverage for as little as $23 a month. The company claims three-fourths of Wal-Mart workers nationwide do have coverage. But the company admits many of those workers have coverage "through a spouse's plan or Medicare."
Thirty other states are said to be contemplating similar legislation. The National Federation of Independent Businesses says this is nothing but an effort to mandate health care coverage, ultimately leading to government control of the system.
Jan. 12, 2006 — Some are calling it the Wal-Mart bill.
The Maryland General Assembly is poised to make its state the first in the nation to require that large corporations — like Wal-Mart — provide more health care to their employees.
Votes are expected within hours to override a gubernatorial veto of a measure that mandates that companies with more than 10,000 employees spend 8 percent of their payroll on health care costs. In Maryland only one company fits that description: Wal-Mart. Some business interests see this move as nothing more than a backdoor effort by Democrats and union leaders to bring about a national health care system.
For some Wal-Mart workers, though, the bill's passage could help them get out of a troubling situation.
Cynthia Murry, a five-year Wal-Mart employee told ABC News, "I have no health coverage, at all."
Murray believes she may be risking her job by speaking out and claims many of her fellow employees agree with her position that Wal-Mart should provide more health care benefits.
A coalition of union and health care organizations have pushed for the Fair Share Health Care Act. They claim that businesses and taxpayers have to subsidize the health care costs of uninsured workers through higher premiums and higher Medicaid costs.
"If an uninsured person who works at, say, Wal-Mart goes to the hospital, can't pay their bill, as many times they can't, everybody else's premiums go up to cover that hospitalization," said Vincent DeMarco of the Maryland Citizens' Health Initiative.
Wal-Mart says its Maryland employees can get coverage for as little as $23 a month. The company claims three-fourths of Wal-Mart workers nationwide do have coverage. But the company admits many of those workers have coverage "through a spouse's plan or Medicare."
Thirty other states are said to be contemplating similar legislation. The National Federation of Independent Businesses says this is nothing but an effort to mandate health care coverage, ultimately leading to government control of the system.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
High-deductible plans help with health insurance
OregonLive.com
Small business - Individuals and firms find some relief as insurers find ways to stabilize rates
Thursday, January 12, 2006
JENNIFER D. MEACHAM
For the self-insured like Eva Willingham, a Wilsonville dog groomer and owner of Eva's Doggery day care, health care insurance is "always too expensive."
But she's finding ways to mitigate costs with Regence BlueCross BlueShield, a carrier which this year is "stabilizing" its rates and upping her deductible to $5,000.
"I still have a $20 office visit co-pay, so if I have something small, I can easily go in without hardship," Willingham said. "And I have a really small IRA that I can pull the $5,000 out of if necessary."
High-deductible plans, rarely found above $2,500 in years past, are now readily available. They're also coming with perks that include $20 office visits, laboratory tests covered by the $20 co-pay, prescription coverage and deductibles waived for accidents.
This is also the second year for health savings accounts, structured like IRAs. Put money in now, get a high-deductible policy that's compliant with the account and forgo income taxes on any money spent on health care.
That's good news for the area's self-insured, who have seen health insurance costs increase from 12 percent to 22 percent from 2004 to 2005, according to an informal survey by the Beaverton-based Oregon Business Association.
"We're aware from our small members that it's a really crushing problem," said Carol Robinson, the association's director of development, "and probably one of the most significant expenses that small independent business people are facing right now."
Providers are taking steps to stop the bleeding.
Regence BlueCross BlueShield is stabilizing rates "at less than trend" in 2006, the first time in five-plus years of medical inflation running 14 percent to 17 percent each year. LifeWise lowered group rates for some in 2006.
Even the state is pitching in. On Jan. 1, the new Oregon Office of Private Health Partnerships launched with bare-bones insurance plans from two companies -- Regence BlueCross BlueShield and Tigard-based Health Net Health Plan of Oregon. So far, 13 employers statewide have signed up, covering insurance for 53 people.
Deductibles are $1,000 for adults and $500 for children. The cost? Twenty percent to 30 percent below general market, expected to drop further in March. The employer pays the first $50.
Until now, Oregon had mandated that all small-business plans cover mental health and some women's and men's health issues, among other requirements. The new plans eliminate some requirements to help shave costs.
"If the state's starting to offer these programs, then maybe it's opening up for all the insurance companies," said John Gridley, president of eHealthLink.com, an agency with self-insured and self-employed clients throughout Southwest Portland.
Meanwhile, membership in some business associations comes with group health insurance rates through online insurers such as eHealthInsurance.com. Associations such as the National Federation of Independent Business/Oregon Chapter and the Oregon Association of Realtors may soon be able to offer self-funded insurance to members, but that's still awaiting congressional support.
"Oregon is definitely not one of the cheaper places to buy insurance, so if this (legislation) passes, you better believe we would start a self-funded program or go through a carrier," said J.L. Wilson, NFIB Oregon state director. "One thing that is sure is that members would start seeing a decrease in their premiums."
Small business - Individuals and firms find some relief as insurers find ways to stabilize rates
Thursday, January 12, 2006
JENNIFER D. MEACHAM
For the self-insured like Eva Willingham, a Wilsonville dog groomer and owner of Eva's Doggery day care, health care insurance is "always too expensive."
But she's finding ways to mitigate costs with Regence BlueCross BlueShield, a carrier which this year is "stabilizing" its rates and upping her deductible to $5,000.
"I still have a $20 office visit co-pay, so if I have something small, I can easily go in without hardship," Willingham said. "And I have a really small IRA that I can pull the $5,000 out of if necessary."
High-deductible plans, rarely found above $2,500 in years past, are now readily available. They're also coming with perks that include $20 office visits, laboratory tests covered by the $20 co-pay, prescription coverage and deductibles waived for accidents.
This is also the second year for health savings accounts, structured like IRAs. Put money in now, get a high-deductible policy that's compliant with the account and forgo income taxes on any money spent on health care.
That's good news for the area's self-insured, who have seen health insurance costs increase from 12 percent to 22 percent from 2004 to 2005, according to an informal survey by the Beaverton-based Oregon Business Association.
"We're aware from our small members that it's a really crushing problem," said Carol Robinson, the association's director of development, "and probably one of the most significant expenses that small independent business people are facing right now."
Providers are taking steps to stop the bleeding.
Regence BlueCross BlueShield is stabilizing rates "at less than trend" in 2006, the first time in five-plus years of medical inflation running 14 percent to 17 percent each year. LifeWise lowered group rates for some in 2006.
Even the state is pitching in. On Jan. 1, the new Oregon Office of Private Health Partnerships launched with bare-bones insurance plans from two companies -- Regence BlueCross BlueShield and Tigard-based Health Net Health Plan of Oregon. So far, 13 employers statewide have signed up, covering insurance for 53 people.
Deductibles are $1,000 for adults and $500 for children. The cost? Twenty percent to 30 percent below general market, expected to drop further in March. The employer pays the first $50.
Until now, Oregon had mandated that all small-business plans cover mental health and some women's and men's health issues, among other requirements. The new plans eliminate some requirements to help shave costs.
"If the state's starting to offer these programs, then maybe it's opening up for all the insurance companies," said John Gridley, president of eHealthLink.com, an agency with self-insured and self-employed clients throughout Southwest Portland.
Meanwhile, membership in some business associations comes with group health insurance rates through online insurers such as eHealthInsurance.com. Associations such as the National Federation of Independent Business/Oregon Chapter and the Oregon Association of Realtors may soon be able to offer self-funded insurance to members, but that's still awaiting congressional support.
"Oregon is definitely not one of the cheaper places to buy insurance, so if this (legislation) passes, you better believe we would start a self-funded program or go through a carrier," said J.L. Wilson, NFIB Oregon state director. "One thing that is sure is that members would start seeing a decrease in their premiums."
Colorado Lawmakers to Tackle Auto Insurance, Regulatory Issues at 2006 Legislative Session
From Insurance Journal
January 11, 2006
The 2006 legislative agenda for property/casualty insurers in Colorado
will be dominated by automobile insurance and regulatory issues, according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).
"Automobile insurance issues will once again be at the top of the agenda," said Kelly Campbell, regional manager for PCI. "Our top priority will be to preserve the current tort-based system, which has enabled Colorado drivers to save money and has given them the option to purchase only the coverage they need. We will vigorously oppose efforts to mandate medical payments coverage and tell lawmakers to
just say no to changes that strip away the cost savings achieved by moving to the tort system. Some of the proposals being discussed will require most drivers to pay twice for medical coverage – once through their health insurance and a second time through car insurance. These efforts hurt consumers by taking away consumer choice and increasing the cost of insurance."
The Colorado legislature, which convenes Wednesday, will consider several legislative proposals developed by the Interim Auto Insurance Committee this fall. The committee focused much of its attention on chiropractors', hospitals', trauma centers' and emergency first responders' claims of financial problems.
"We expect the legislative wrangling over the impact of the transition to the tort-based system will be intense as these interest groups seek to address their financial woes at the expense of Colorado motorists," said Campbell. "However, forcing Colorado drivers to pay more for auto insurance is not the answer."
Legislation that has been considered during past sessions and will likely resurface again this session includes proposals to ban or severely restrict credit-based insurance scoring and efforts to reverse reforms to the workers' compensation system.
PCI also expects to see proposals for prior approval of rates and market conduct legislation. Last year the Legislature defeated several insurance scoring bills and legislation that would have prohibited the workers' comp guaranty fund from seeking reimbursement from large employers.
A new version of workers' comp legislation that allows injured employees to choose their own medical provider is expected to be introduced this session after similar legislation was repeatedly
defeated last year.
January 11, 2006
The 2006 legislative agenda for property/casualty insurers in Colorado
will be dominated by automobile insurance and regulatory issues, according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).
"Automobile insurance issues will once again be at the top of the agenda," said Kelly Campbell, regional manager for PCI. "Our top priority will be to preserve the current tort-based system, which has enabled Colorado drivers to save money and has given them the option to purchase only the coverage they need. We will vigorously oppose efforts to mandate medical payments coverage and tell lawmakers to
just say no to changes that strip away the cost savings achieved by moving to the tort system. Some of the proposals being discussed will require most drivers to pay twice for medical coverage – once through their health insurance and a second time through car insurance. These efforts hurt consumers by taking away consumer choice and increasing the cost of insurance."
The Colorado legislature, which convenes Wednesday, will consider several legislative proposals developed by the Interim Auto Insurance Committee this fall. The committee focused much of its attention on chiropractors', hospitals', trauma centers' and emergency first responders' claims of financial problems.
"We expect the legislative wrangling over the impact of the transition to the tort-based system will be intense as these interest groups seek to address their financial woes at the expense of Colorado motorists," said Campbell. "However, forcing Colorado drivers to pay more for auto insurance is not the answer."
Legislation that has been considered during past sessions and will likely resurface again this session includes proposals to ban or severely restrict credit-based insurance scoring and efforts to reverse reforms to the workers' compensation system.
PCI also expects to see proposals for prior approval of rates and market conduct legislation. Last year the Legislature defeated several insurance scoring bills and legislation that would have prohibited the workers' comp guaranty fund from seeking reimbursement from large employers.
A new version of workers' comp legislation that allows injured employees to choose their own medical provider is expected to be introduced this session after similar legislation was repeatedly
defeated last year.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Newsom Faces Defining Moment in Health Insurance Fight
by Randy Shaw‚ Jan. 11‚ 2006
After 72% of San Francisco voters favored a mandatory health insurance law in November 2004 (it lost by 1% statewide), local legislation imposing the provisions of the measure was the logical next step. But Supervisor Tom Ammiano’s measure to require San Francisco businesses with 20 or more employees to fund or provide health benefits has run into stiff opposition from the same business groups that---along with WalMart and McDonalds---helped defeat the state initiative. Mayor Newsom opposes the legislation “in its current form,” but with John Burton and every major California Democrat backing the near identical state measure, vetoing the local health legislation would be bad policy and even worse politics for the Mayor.
It is hard to believe that there is serious debate over the need for Supervisor Ammiano’s legislation. With San Francisco General Hospital bursting at the seams, and with the lack of a city plan to rebuild it, it is imperative that the city’s businesses stop imposing their health care obligations on city taxpayers.
Leading the charge against policies endorsed by the state and national Democratic Party (as well as the Greens) is the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Longtime Feinstein ally Jim Lazarus is now a senior vice president with the Chamber, and his criticism of the Ammiano measure shows how out of touch the business group is with San Francisco.
For example, Lazurus attacks Ammiano’s measure for “requiring businesses to pay health care for workers that don’t live in the city.” But San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved a local minimum wage (Prop L) that applied to workers regardless of where they lived.
Moreover, for several years groups contracting with San Francisco have been required to pay a wage much higher than the city minimum. This mandate applies regardless of where the employee lives.
In addition, the constitutional right to travel would prohibit San Francisco from limiting its health benefits law to city residents. So the Chamber’s argument conflicts with the will of San Francisco voters as well as the United States. Constitution.
Chamber President Steve Falk opposes the legislation because “it doesn’t address the issue of health care cost and delivery.” But if the legislation did impose a single-payer system in San Francisco that addressed cost and delivery issues, Falk and the Chamber would be first in line to denounce it for “overreaching.”
The Small Business Commission wants further study of the proposal, though nobody believes that such study would result in the business community’s support of employer-mandated health care. All the necessary economic analyses were done when the state legislature enacted what was then known as the “Burton bill,” which San Francisco voters approved after corporate interests subjected it to a referendum.
Given Mayor Newsom’s concern with children’s health and the problems of working families, supporting the Ammiano measure should be a no-brainer. But the Mayor likes to be on the same side of issues as the business community, and prefers to work on issues where he, rather than a Supervisor, takes the lead.
So the Mayor has two choices. He can veto Ammiano’s legislation and find himself on the losing side of a November ballot measure on the issue. This course of action would also identify him as opposing the needs of working families, and would come back to haunt him in a future statewide primary for higher office.
Or the Mayor can make some adjustments to the Ammiano legislation that still maintains its consistency with the state initiative approved by 72% of the electorate. This adjustment could address the number of hours an employee must work to get coverage (currently set at 80 hours per month), and there could also be further analysis of the $345 per employee price tag, which exceeds the cost of a single employee in a group plan through Kaiser.
But at the end of the day, Mayor Newsom cannot veto legislation that has been central to the agenda of the state Democratic Party. Supervisor Ammiano is open to negotiations, and the Mayor should work out an agreement that can lead to the legislation’s prompt enactment.
After 72% of San Francisco voters favored a mandatory health insurance law in November 2004 (it lost by 1% statewide), local legislation imposing the provisions of the measure was the logical next step. But Supervisor Tom Ammiano’s measure to require San Francisco businesses with 20 or more employees to fund or provide health benefits has run into stiff opposition from the same business groups that---along with WalMart and McDonalds---helped defeat the state initiative. Mayor Newsom opposes the legislation “in its current form,” but with John Burton and every major California Democrat backing the near identical state measure, vetoing the local health legislation would be bad policy and even worse politics for the Mayor.
It is hard to believe that there is serious debate over the need for Supervisor Ammiano’s legislation. With San Francisco General Hospital bursting at the seams, and with the lack of a city plan to rebuild it, it is imperative that the city’s businesses stop imposing their health care obligations on city taxpayers.
Leading the charge against policies endorsed by the state and national Democratic Party (as well as the Greens) is the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. Longtime Feinstein ally Jim Lazarus is now a senior vice president with the Chamber, and his criticism of the Ammiano measure shows how out of touch the business group is with San Francisco.
For example, Lazurus attacks Ammiano’s measure for “requiring businesses to pay health care for workers that don’t live in the city.” But San Francisco voters overwhelmingly approved a local minimum wage (Prop L) that applied to workers regardless of where they lived.
Moreover, for several years groups contracting with San Francisco have been required to pay a wage much higher than the city minimum. This mandate applies regardless of where the employee lives.
In addition, the constitutional right to travel would prohibit San Francisco from limiting its health benefits law to city residents. So the Chamber’s argument conflicts with the will of San Francisco voters as well as the United States. Constitution.
Chamber President Steve Falk opposes the legislation because “it doesn’t address the issue of health care cost and delivery.” But if the legislation did impose a single-payer system in San Francisco that addressed cost and delivery issues, Falk and the Chamber would be first in line to denounce it for “overreaching.”
The Small Business Commission wants further study of the proposal, though nobody believes that such study would result in the business community’s support of employer-mandated health care. All the necessary economic analyses were done when the state legislature enacted what was then known as the “Burton bill,” which San Francisco voters approved after corporate interests subjected it to a referendum.
Given Mayor Newsom’s concern with children’s health and the problems of working families, supporting the Ammiano measure should be a no-brainer. But the Mayor likes to be on the same side of issues as the business community, and prefers to work on issues where he, rather than a Supervisor, takes the lead.
So the Mayor has two choices. He can veto Ammiano’s legislation and find himself on the losing side of a November ballot measure on the issue. This course of action would also identify him as opposing the needs of working families, and would come back to haunt him in a future statewide primary for higher office.
Or the Mayor can make some adjustments to the Ammiano legislation that still maintains its consistency with the state initiative approved by 72% of the electorate. This adjustment could address the number of hours an employee must work to get coverage (currently set at 80 hours per month), and there could also be further analysis of the $345 per employee price tag, which exceeds the cost of a single employee in a group plan through Kaiser.
But at the end of the day, Mayor Newsom cannot veto legislation that has been central to the agenda of the state Democratic Party. Supervisor Ammiano is open to negotiations, and the Mayor should work out an agreement that can lead to the legislation’s prompt enactment.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Allstate Revolutionizing Car Insurance in America: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
Press release
NORTHBROOK, Ill., Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- By the time you finish reading this sentence, someone in America will have gotten in a car crash. In a year, that totals up to about six million accidents. Within three years, 30 percent of drivers will experience a collision. Allstate thinks that's too many. So, this year the company plans to bring a new kind of car insurance to a nationwide audience that encourages safe driving. With Your Choice Auto, Allstate is offering new rewards to consumers who drive safely and enhanced protection for those not able to stay out of harm's way. Beginning this year, Allstate Your Choice Auto is being supported with a national advertising effort including national radio and television advertising featuring actor Dennis Haysbert and online and print advertisements.
A first for the auto insurance industry, Allstate Your Choice Auto Insurance is a new insurance product that is reinventing the way people view and buy car insurance. Allstate Your Choice Auto Insurance allows consumers, in states where the product is available, to customize their policies based on a variety of benefit and costs options, including safe driving deductibles and bonuses, accident waiver enhancement features and expanded new car protection plans.
"For too long there has been a 'one size fits all' approach to auto insurance," said Tom Wilson, president and chief operating officer for Allstate. "We know that Americans want more choice and benefits from their auto insurance. Your Choice Auto breaks the mold of products traditionally offered by many insurers by presenting consumers with even more choices, innovative features and enhanced rewards for safe drivers."
Allstate designed the new product features in response to research that revealed consumers have long desired the type of benefits that Your Choice Auto provides. Allstate research indicates nearly 9 out of 10 people shopping for auto insurance would be highly compelled to purchase policies, which immediately reward safe driving through reductions or credits to their deductibles. Additionally, 8 out of 10 shoppers would be motivated to choose policies, which protect against premium increases because of accidents, regardless of fault.
New rewards for safe driving:
-- Deductible Rewards
Gives $100 off collision coverage deductible the day you sign up and an
additional $100 off for each year of safe driving - up to $500.
-- Safe Driving Bonus
Gives customers the opportunity to earn up to a five percent credit
that can be applied toward their next renewal premium. That's in
addition to any savings the customer may qualify for through Allstate's
safe driving discounts.
Enhanced protection in case of an accident:
-- Accident Forgiveness
Helps keep premiums from going up just because of an accident. Some
policies make customers earn this type of feature over time, but with
Your Choice Auto gold and platinum protection, accident forgiveness is
available on day one.
-- New Car Replacement
Allstate will help pay to repair a customer's car without a deduction
for depreciation. With the new car replacement feature if a customer's
new car is totaled in a covered loss, Allstate will pay to replace it
with a brand new car.
On The Road With Your Choice Auto
At the 2006 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit, Allstate will share the floor with the world's leading auto manufacturers and unveil the Allstate Bumper Car Derby, an interactive driving experience where accidents are forgiven and safe drivers rewarded.
"Americans have a love affair with their cars. However, they are less enamored with their car insurance, especially after there is an accident," said Wilson. "We've created the Allstate Bumper Car Derby to bring the Allstate Your Choice Auto Insurance features to life and help consumers feel as good about their car insurance as they do about their cars."
NORTHBROOK, Ill., Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- By the time you finish reading this sentence, someone in America will have gotten in a car crash. In a year, that totals up to about six million accidents. Within three years, 30 percent of drivers will experience a collision. Allstate thinks that's too many. So, this year the company plans to bring a new kind of car insurance to a nationwide audience that encourages safe driving. With Your Choice Auto, Allstate is offering new rewards to consumers who drive safely and enhanced protection for those not able to stay out of harm's way. Beginning this year, Allstate Your Choice Auto is being supported with a national advertising effort including national radio and television advertising featuring actor Dennis Haysbert and online and print advertisements.
A first for the auto insurance industry, Allstate Your Choice Auto Insurance is a new insurance product that is reinventing the way people view and buy car insurance. Allstate Your Choice Auto Insurance allows consumers, in states where the product is available, to customize their policies based on a variety of benefit and costs options, including safe driving deductibles and bonuses, accident waiver enhancement features and expanded new car protection plans.
"For too long there has been a 'one size fits all' approach to auto insurance," said Tom Wilson, president and chief operating officer for Allstate. "We know that Americans want more choice and benefits from their auto insurance. Your Choice Auto breaks the mold of products traditionally offered by many insurers by presenting consumers with even more choices, innovative features and enhanced rewards for safe drivers."
Allstate designed the new product features in response to research that revealed consumers have long desired the type of benefits that Your Choice Auto provides. Allstate research indicates nearly 9 out of 10 people shopping for auto insurance would be highly compelled to purchase policies, which immediately reward safe driving through reductions or credits to their deductibles. Additionally, 8 out of 10 shoppers would be motivated to choose policies, which protect against premium increases because of accidents, regardless of fault.
New rewards for safe driving:
-- Deductible Rewards
Gives $100 off collision coverage deductible the day you sign up and an
additional $100 off for each year of safe driving - up to $500.
-- Safe Driving Bonus
Gives customers the opportunity to earn up to a five percent credit
that can be applied toward their next renewal premium. That's in
addition to any savings the customer may qualify for through Allstate's
safe driving discounts.
Enhanced protection in case of an accident:
-- Accident Forgiveness
Helps keep premiums from going up just because of an accident. Some
policies make customers earn this type of feature over time, but with
Your Choice Auto gold and platinum protection, accident forgiveness is
available on day one.
-- New Car Replacement
Allstate will help pay to repair a customer's car without a deduction
for depreciation. With the new car replacement feature if a customer's
new car is totaled in a covered loss, Allstate will pay to replace it
with a brand new car.
On The Road With Your Choice Auto
At the 2006 North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit, Allstate will share the floor with the world's leading auto manufacturers and unveil the Allstate Bumper Car Derby, an interactive driving experience where accidents are forgiven and safe drivers rewarded.
"Americans have a love affair with their cars. However, they are less enamored with their car insurance, especially after there is an accident," said Wilson. "We've created the Allstate Bumper Car Derby to bring the Allstate Your Choice Auto Insurance features to life and help consumers feel as good about their car insurance as they do about their cars."
NJ Health Insurance for kids upto 30
By RUTH PADAWER
STAFF WRITER
Not long ago, 30 marked the brink of middle age. On Monday, 30 became merely the end of childhood - at least for health insurance in New Jersey.
By a 68-8 vote, the state Assembly joined the Senate in approving a bill that would require insurers to offer coverage to children under their parents' plan, until those kids turn 30, thereby giving new meaning to the notion of extended adolescence. The bill passed the Senate last week, 36-0.
In so doing, Trenton follows the lead of a few states that have inched up the age of independence in response to spiraling health costs. New Jersey, however, is the first to embrace kids old enough to have attended their 10-year high school reunion. Acting Governor Codey is expected to sign the measure into law.
"This will take 100,000 people or more off the uninsured rolls," said a pleased Neil Cohen, (D-Union), Assembly deputy majority leader and sponsor of the bill. "That translates into money taxpayers won't have to pay for charity care. It gets people health insurance at a relatively low price because that age group traditionally doesn't have many claims. There's no cost to business, and it provides the insurance industry with a new revenue stream. It's good public policy all around."
Young adults are the largest growing segment of the uninsured; in New Jersey; more than one-third of residents ages 19 to 24 lack health insurance.
In the last five years, the number of Americans without health insurance has jumped 16 percent, and nearly half of that increase is due to people between the ages of 19 and 34, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Employment statistics suggest that fewer employers offer health care coverage and more people are self-employed than they were a decade ago.
Until recently, most parents could include children on their health insurance plan only until they turned 19, though exceptions were often given for full-time college students. In New Jersey, coverage under most health benefits plans terminates at age 19, but some extend it for full-time college students.
With some employers declining to offer health insurance and the ranks of the uninsured widening, a growing number of state Legislatures has intervened. Effective this month, Colorado raised the dependency age limit to 25 for those who are unmarried, financially dependent on their parents or still living with them - an extension that applies regardless of whether the child is in college. New Mexico has a similar law. In Utah, dependency can continue until age 26.
Under New Jersey's bill - which would take effect 120 days after becoming law - extended coverage would apply only to individuals who are unmarried, without a dependent of their own and are residents of the state or enrolled as a full-time student at an accredited institution of higher education. They must not be covered by another insurance policy.
Cohen estimates the premiums will range from $1,200 to $2,000 a year, though the actual figure will be determined by the state. By contrast, it would cost $5,000 to $18,000 a year for those same young adults to buy individual policies, according to the state Department of Banking and Insurance.
The bill does not require employers to pay any part of the extended coverage, an essential factor in the New Jersey Business and Industry Association's support of the measure.
"This gives more choices to parents whose children are aging out of their coverage, without burdening employers who are already struggling to deal with skyrocketing insurance costs," said Christine Stearns, vice president of health and legal affairs for the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, noting that her members' cost for providing health insurance exploded 55 percent between 2001 and 2004.
The insurance industry took no position on the bill.
"The devil is in the details," said Michele Guhl, president of the New Jersey Association of Health Plans. "In theory, we'd love to see more people insured, and as someone who has had young-adult children without insurance, I'm sure I would have jumped at this. But there are lot of administrative details that have yet to be figured out and we don't yet know what the impact will be on overall pricing."
Some analysts say that because young adults are usually healthy, they are a good, low-cost insurance risk. Others predict that the people most likely to enroll are those with medical needs, a tendency that could end up costing the industry a great deal more.
STAFF WRITER
Not long ago, 30 marked the brink of middle age. On Monday, 30 became merely the end of childhood - at least for health insurance in New Jersey.
By a 68-8 vote, the state Assembly joined the Senate in approving a bill that would require insurers to offer coverage to children under their parents' plan, until those kids turn 30, thereby giving new meaning to the notion of extended adolescence. The bill passed the Senate last week, 36-0.
In so doing, Trenton follows the lead of a few states that have inched up the age of independence in response to spiraling health costs. New Jersey, however, is the first to embrace kids old enough to have attended their 10-year high school reunion. Acting Governor Codey is expected to sign the measure into law.
"This will take 100,000 people or more off the uninsured rolls," said a pleased Neil Cohen, (D-Union), Assembly deputy majority leader and sponsor of the bill. "That translates into money taxpayers won't have to pay for charity care. It gets people health insurance at a relatively low price because that age group traditionally doesn't have many claims. There's no cost to business, and it provides the insurance industry with a new revenue stream. It's good public policy all around."
Young adults are the largest growing segment of the uninsured; in New Jersey; more than one-third of residents ages 19 to 24 lack health insurance.
In the last five years, the number of Americans without health insurance has jumped 16 percent, and nearly half of that increase is due to people between the ages of 19 and 34, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Employment statistics suggest that fewer employers offer health care coverage and more people are self-employed than they were a decade ago.
Until recently, most parents could include children on their health insurance plan only until they turned 19, though exceptions were often given for full-time college students. In New Jersey, coverage under most health benefits plans terminates at age 19, but some extend it for full-time college students.
With some employers declining to offer health insurance and the ranks of the uninsured widening, a growing number of state Legislatures has intervened. Effective this month, Colorado raised the dependency age limit to 25 for those who are unmarried, financially dependent on their parents or still living with them - an extension that applies regardless of whether the child is in college. New Mexico has a similar law. In Utah, dependency can continue until age 26.
Under New Jersey's bill - which would take effect 120 days after becoming law - extended coverage would apply only to individuals who are unmarried, without a dependent of their own and are residents of the state or enrolled as a full-time student at an accredited institution of higher education. They must not be covered by another insurance policy.
Cohen estimates the premiums will range from $1,200 to $2,000 a year, though the actual figure will be determined by the state. By contrast, it would cost $5,000 to $18,000 a year for those same young adults to buy individual policies, according to the state Department of Banking and Insurance.
The bill does not require employers to pay any part of the extended coverage, an essential factor in the New Jersey Business and Industry Association's support of the measure.
"This gives more choices to parents whose children are aging out of their coverage, without burdening employers who are already struggling to deal with skyrocketing insurance costs," said Christine Stearns, vice president of health and legal affairs for the New Jersey Business & Industry Association, noting that her members' cost for providing health insurance exploded 55 percent between 2001 and 2004.
The insurance industry took no position on the bill.
"The devil is in the details," said Michele Guhl, president of the New Jersey Association of Health Plans. "In theory, we'd love to see more people insured, and as someone who has had young-adult children without insurance, I'm sure I would have jumped at this. But there are lot of administrative details that have yet to be figured out and we don't yet know what the impact will be on overall pricing."
Some analysts say that because young adults are usually healthy, they are a good, low-cost insurance risk. Others predict that the people most likely to enroll are those with medical needs, a tendency that could end up costing the industry a great deal more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
