Layers and Layers of Fact-Checkers

The Lame Stream Media prides itself on its unerring accuracy and commitment to getting the facts straight. As it turns out, at least when it comes to life insurance, this pride is, in fact, unjustified. As we pointed out almost 4 years ago, they can't even get the relatively simple suicide exclusion correct:

"...it appears that this may well have been an elaborately staged suicide, the point of which was to leave the proceeds of a life insurance policy to the victim's son ... “There’s no such thing as suicide insurance."

Which is true, but as we pointed out, irrelevant. It would have taken the reporter five minutes to interview a life insurance agent to provide clarity and context (not to mention accuracy).

And now we see the same shoddy reporting in another tragic case:

"... for Cindy Karlsen, there was the $1.2 million policy that her husband had now taken out on her life ... She learned Karlsen had invested some of the insurance money from his son's death into a life insurance policy on her."

And how did the erstwhile Mrs Karlsen learn this? Apparently it came as a big surprise to her that she had applied for life insurance, but some simple fact-checking by the (so-called) reporter might have revealed that it's almost impossible to buy life insurance on another person without his or her consent, let alone knowledge. And a policy with over $1 million on the line is going to require not just a physical examination, but (at least according to the carriers I represent), a telephone interview with the prospective insured.

So we are left to believe one of two things is true:

1) A life insurance company issued a million dollar policy strictly off an application - no exam, no blood or urine draw, no interview - and no effort to confirm the information on the application.

or

2) She agreed to complete and sign a lengthy life insurance application, take a fairly invasive physical exam - including, depending on her age, a stress-test and the release of her medical records - and do an exhaustive telephone interview, without the slightest clue that this was for a ... wait for it .... life insurance policy.

How dumb does the LSM think we are?

[Major IB Thanks to Jeff M for helping me noodle through this post]

Read more »

Monday Afternoon LinkFest

Lately, we've had an embarrassment of riches concerning the ObamaTax and other related news. Because there are only 24 hours in a day, it's not really possible to give each one the blog-space it probably deserves, but at least we can give our readers a heads' up on what's hot:

1 - We've been warning folks about the very real probability of fraud in the new Navigator program. From FoIB Holly R here's the latest:

"...officials are watching for look-alike websites that could lead consumers to be the victims of fraud or simply confuse people ... States are on the lookout for websites created by interest groups, private insurance companies and sometimes scammers that have similar web addresses and the appearances of the official state exchange websites."

So-called "phishing" sites have been around for a long time, this seems to be the latest iteration of that phenomenon.

2 - Holly also tips us to this story - surely only one of many to come - about pushback on so-called "wellness" programs. In this case, certain employees at Penn State University are protesting a new requirement that they either participate in one of these, with the added benefit that they'll get to divulge some very personal information, at least some of which seems pretty intrusive (and doesn't seem to be particularly "health"-related):

"The plan requires nonunion employees, like professors and clerical staff members, to visit their doctors ... and submit to an extensive online health risk questionnaire that asks, among other questions, whether they have recently had problems with a co-worker, a supervisor or a divorce"

Cost for declining to participate? $100 a month (or $200 if they're married and have their spouse on the plan).

Potential solution (and probably rationale for the whole exercise): opt out of the Penn State plan and onto the Exchange.

3 - We've noted before that the Public Exchanges seem to be having a problem attracting (and keeping) carriers. Our Friend Jeff M reports from North Carolina that the Tar Heel State is no exception:

"FirstCarolinaCare Insurance abruptly pulled out of the North Carolina market, saying there are too many unknowns about how the Affordable Care Act will play out here."

So what if they gave an Exchange and no carrier came?

We may find out.

4 - And circling back around to Navigators and the likelihood of shenanigans, Florida has banned them from county health departments:

"Local health departments can accept public exchange brochures and other exchange outreach material, but they can distribute the materials only if consumers ask for information"

Florida heath officials wanted to make sure that they're agencies know that Navigators "aren't acting on behalf of the state."

Gee, one wonders why anyone would think that.

Read more »

Not just No, but Heck No!

As Bob noted last month, the grand folks in Capital City aren't too keen on  rubbing elbows with us rubes waiting on line at the Health Insurance Exchange. Far beneath their stations in life, don'tcha know.

Well, it should probably comes as no surprise, then, to learn that Federal "workers" really don't want to give up their gold-plated (but Yugo-priced) health insurance. After all, they were promised that "if they liked their insurance, they could keep their insurance."

[Ironic, I know]

But if you'd really like to know just how much they don't want to forced off those great/affordable plans, "[a] new survey of 2,500 federal employees and retirees found that 92.3 percent believe federal workers should keep their current health insurance and not be forced into ObamaCare."

Frankly, I'm surprised that number's so low.

Read more »

Exchange THIS

The LA Times reports some major California insurers have built "narrow networks" of doctors and hospitals for plans that will be offered thru the State's Obamacare Exchange.

Insurance companies (and consultants and many large employers) say that these narrow networks reduce costs by increasing the insurers' ability to negotiate price discounts.  Physicians and hospitals say they oppose these narrow networks because they fear patients won't be able to find the doctor or hospital they like, in the plan they like.

As for the State, Peter Lee - executive director of Covered California [the State's Obamacare Exchange] - says "Our interest is in assuring everyone enrolled in a plan has ready access to the clinicians they need . . . That means if a plan can't serve patients, we'll close it down from taking new enrollment"

So if a plan doesn't provide what the Exchange deems sufficient access, the Exchange will make sure the plan can't provide ANY additional access.

Is that a solution?

The Times goes on to say "Consumers could see long wait times, a scarcity of specialists and loss of a longtime doctor."

Isn't that exactly what people say who worry about rationing under Obamacare - and have been relentlessly ridiculed for saying it?

Read more »

Water, water, everywhere - Are YOU covered?

With the horrific flooding going on in Colorado, folks may be wondering how (or even if) their homeowner's insurance policy will cover them. The folks at the National Flood Insurance Program have a neat little widget that helps you determine your home's risk of flooding, and how much flood insurance coverage might cost.

As always, it's best to check with your professional, independent homeowner's insurance agent.

Read more »

Obamacare Security Breach

Much has been made, at least in some circles, of the vulnerability of your personal information

that will be filtered through the #Obamacare #datahub.

For the most part, the lame stream media has ignored this topic and when they have mentioned it they simply parrot what DC says indicating there is nothing to fear.

Security watchdogs know that hacking is a potential threat but most data breaches come from within, not outside the firewall.

That being said, the first known problem in the Obamacare #exchange has already been reported.

Two reviews are planned of MNsure, the state's new online health insurance exchange, after an employee accidentally distributed confidential information about more than 2,400 insurance agents.

A legislative panel and the legislative auditor said Friday they want more information about the breach. MNsure officials acknowledged mishandling private information. They said the employee sent an email to the office of an Apple Valley insurance broker on Thursday afternoon that contained Social Security numbers, names, business addresses and other identifying information.

LaCrosse Tribune

"Only" 2400 insurance agents.

No big deal, right?

If you buy from the Minnesota health insurance exchange, or any other exchange, how can you be 100% this won't happen to you?

Users of the exchanges will have to provide sensitive information, including Social Security numbers. The information will be sent to a federal hub to verify such things as citizenship and household income. The privacy of confidential data has been a long-time concern for some skeptics of the exchange.

"The people who believe in this are so driven that there's a sub-context of, `Just let us do our job and get as many people signed up as possible, and we'll pick up the debris later,'?" said Steve Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor who specializes in information technology related to the health industry.

Yes, the push is to sign as many up as quickly as possible. Get more people dependent on the government for free money.

I would be remiss if I failed to mention another option for purchasing your new Obamacare health insurance plan, and it does not involve the data hub or navigators who have had 3 days of training..

Buy OFF exchange through a licensed insurance professional.

Read more »

This Sceptered Isle, Part DCIV

From the Telegraph of London on 9/11: 

"Death rates in NHS hospitals are among the highest in the western world, shock figures revealed yesterday. British patients were found to be almost 50 per cent more likely to die from poor care than those in America."

Hat tip to Tim Worstall's enjoyable blog, which generally focuses on economics.

The Telegraph article also cites this comment from a U.K. Professor Sir Brian Jarman, who is considered a globally-recognised expert on hospital performance:

"I expected us to do well and was very surprised we didn’t do well – but there is no means of denying the results as they are absolutely clear."

Paul Krugman famously attempted to pre-empt this kind of factual finding several years ago, when he declared  "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We’ve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."

Shucks, a school child knows facts cannot be both absolutely true and absolutely false.   Facts are facts, and in that sense are not political.

Yet in real life the debate over centralized government control of the medical care system rages on, in many cases fueled by expert disagreement over whether facts are true or false.

Read more »