Rising health insurance costs outpace income: report

Wisconsin workers who have trimmed family budgets to pay health insurance premiums already know the costs have risen, but they may be shocked to learn by how much. A new report says Wisconsin workers’ premiums for family plans have risen nearly five times faster than their pay since 2000. “Insurance premiums in the period between 2000 and 2007 rose by 73.9 percent. In percentage terms, (Wisconsin) earnings increased by 15.5 percent,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group. The Wisconsin median worker’s earnings grew from $24,421 to $28,202 between 2000 and 2007, Pollack said. Pollack announced the report in a telephone conference call with Robert Kraig, program manager for Citizen Action of Wisconsin and U.S. Reps. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Steve Kagen, D-Appleton. In addition to higher premiums, consumers face higher out-of-pocket costs for “thinner” insurance plans that provide less coverage than in the past, Pollack said. The Families USA report found average family plan premiums in Wisconsin increased from $7,112 to $12,369 between 2000 and 2007. The figure represents the combined tab for the worker and employer share of premiums. A worker’s share of the cost rose from $1,458 to $2,573 a year while the employer’s portion climbed from $5,654 to $9,796. The premium costs on an individual health plan rose by $324 to $940 during the same period for a worker and by $1,349 to $3,559 for an employer. Families USA plans to issue reports for all 50 states by Oct. 22 to highlight the trend of higher premiums across the country. Wisconsin was the fourth report to be released. Pollack said the premium costs-to-income ratio ranged from 2.5 times to 17.1 times among states. Pollack said the increased premiums reflect higher costs for such items as medical technology, hospital care, physician services and pharmaceutical drugs. Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said his members “recognize that rising health care costs are a burden on individuals and working families and are making it difficult for small businesses to be able to afford health care insurance for their employees.” Zirkelbach said the trade association has issued a proposal to address “the underlying cost drivers that are contributing to higher health care costs.” Glenn Mandel and wife, Diane Redelin, Egg Harbor small business owners, pay just under $14,000 a year for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs |because they say Redelin was misdiagnosed with a chronic gastrointestinal condition. Her premiums are higher because she is considered to have a pre-existing condition. “It’s too painful to look at,” Redelin said of the insurance bill. Mandel and their teenage children are insured by a different insurance company and have a $10,000 deductible to cut costs. Even with that, they can’t afford to provide insurance for their one employee because insurance would rise even higher. Lani Madis, a small family business owner from Eau Claire who participated in the conference call, said steadily rising premiums forced her and her husband to drop group health insurance for their two adult children who work for them. Madis “bit the bullet” and continued coverage in 2006 when premiums rose 26 percent. But the business could not cope with an estimated 40 percent premium increase for 2009. “Given the cost of gas, the predicted energy costs for the winter and our vendors raising their costs, we had to make a decision to drop group health insurance,” she said. Baldwin, said employers “are looking at incredibly difficult choices while our economy is in stress.” Kagen, an allergist before he was elected to Congress, said the report “shows we have to change the model we use to pay for health care.” In particular, Kagen said there’s a need for greater transparency on health care costs and the elimination of pre-existing medical conditions to deny or limit coverage to people.

Obama Takes On McCain's Health-Care Prescription

We've seen what Bush-McCain policies have done to our economy. Now John McCain wants to do the same to our health care. McCain just published an article praising Wall Street deregulation. Said he'd reduce oversight of the health insurance industry, too. Just "as we have done over the last decade in banking." Increasing costs and threatening coverage. A prescription for disaster. John McCain. A risk we just can't afford to take. Analysis: This Barack Obama commercial is based on John McCain's own words, although those words are subject to interpretation. An article in the obscure journal Contingencies, published under McCain's name, says: "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous, nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation." In the article, the Arizona senator certainly sounds like the strong advocate of deregulation he has always been. And the timing makes McCain sound like he is defending the loosening of federal rules on banks, now widely blamed for the Wall Street turmoil that has led President Bush to propose a $700 billion bailout of the banking and credit industries. The McCain camp contends that the Republican nominee was referring only to the regulatory change that allowed banks to operate across state lines. But because the article does not specify what he has in mind, McCain leaves himself vulnerable to the charge that he endorsed the full sweep of banking deregulation. There is no evidence that McCain is "threatening coverage" for health care, and the "prescription for disaster" verdict is credited to the Boston Globe. The ad doesn't say it is from the paper's liberal editorial page. For the spot to cite the "Bush-McCain policies" ignores the fact that McCain has broken with the president on some issues. In fact, he has blamed the administration for allowing the banking crisis to develop and proposed a different solution. Every recent Obama ad has either mentioned or pictured the unpopular president. By using the article to remind voters of McCain's past support for deregulation, the commercial tries to paint him as partially responsible for the Wall Street meltdown, even though congressional Democrats did little to change the policies.

Tap Water Cleaner Than Bottled Water Sold at Stores?

I get a lot of questions like; is tap water cleaner than bottled water sold at stores. Sometimes, they are easy to answer; sometimes, not. This one is a little complicated. Usually, I try to start out with a short answer, either yes or no. There's no short answer for this question. I know there is an on-going effort in some communities to promote the safety of drinking straight from the tap. While I feel that buying bottles of water is not the right choice. I cannot agree with the idea of drinking unfiltered tap-water. I would also have to ask the promoters this question. Why is tap water cleaner than bottled water sold at stores? There are some relevant answers they could give. There are allowable levels of bacterial contamination for bottled brands. Many companies use inadequate filtration methods, so the purity is questionable, especially when it comes to chemical contaminants. Compounds used to make the bottles leach into the waters, causing further chemical contamination. But, when it comes to taste and purity, is tap water cleaner than bottled water sold at stores? They would have to say "not really". In some cases, they are identical. You have a third option that you may not have considered: home filtration. With the right home purifier, you can get something better tasting than you'll find in a bottle. Safer than either bottled or tap-water. Less expensive than buying hundreds of bottles every month. And, you'll be protecting the environment from all of those plastic bottles that are clogging the landfills. You don't have to spend a lot of money, but those cheap purifiers sold by Brita and PUR are not very effective. For about a hundred dollars and less than a dime a gallon, you can get a multi-stage selective filtration device that sits on you kitchen countertop and provides 500 gallons of purity before you even need to change the filter. While Brita and PUR don't include enough steps, some companies include more than is necessary. Ever-Pure for example includes a reverse osmosis step. They have a number of different systems, but the only under the counter kitchen model that provides effective contaminant removal costs nearly $800. You don't need that. If you are talking about home filtered and you ask, "Is tap water cleaner than bottled water sold at stores?" The answer is a simple, "Yes, always." I'm sure the debate will continue to go on, with the industry saying that bottles are better and the facilities saying that unfiltered tap-water is fine, but now you know the truth. Either one is a bad choice. In some emergency situations, bottled waters are a necessary evil. The industry would not be able to help during emergencies, if people stopped buying bottled brands, all together. But, you can stop buying so much. That's my answer to; is tap water cleaner than bottled water sold at stores. Hope it helps. Dominic Anderton is a dedicated researcher on the health benefits of purified drinking and bath water. Visit his site now at http://www.pure-and-safe-water.com to get the facts on how to choose the best water purification system.