If you are reading this post, then you have already taken the first step to finding legitimate affordable healthcare coverage by searching here at healthinsurancefinders.com. When you log on here for a free quote for individual health insurance you can be sure that you will only be contacted only by top rated health insurance agents licensed to sell health insurance in your state. Unfortunately not everyone is as lucky.

In fact regulators say that health insurance scams are on the rise. The poor economy and unemployment over 10% in some parts of the country, makes for too many people looking for low-cost health coverage, leaving them prey to offers that they should know are too good to be true. However desperate is as desperate does, and people, especially those just struggling to make ends meet and in major fear of a devastating illness and concurrent medical bills, are more likely to be taken in by enticing offers via E-mails, blast faxes, or relentless telemarketers. Indeed, according to a recent piece in US News and World Report, bogus healthcare plans are the most significant insurance fraud perpetrated on unwary consumers since the start of the recession.

James Quiggle, spokesperson for the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, who cites a November survey his nonprofit conducted of 37 state fraud bureaus, says, “It’s very dangerous out there.”

While the economic times are certainly a contributing factor to these predators coming out of the woodwork, it is not the only driving force. Another is the confusion caused by the recent signing of the Healthcare Reform Act into law. Smart scammers are capitalizing on this confusion, and are pouncing on people with threats that if they do not sign up now for health insurance they will face stiff penalties, wage garnishments, even jail –of course none of which are true!

Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said,  “A lot of people are eager to get some benefits and are not quite sure how to do that, this opens the door, I think, for some unscrupulous folks to—under the guise of ‘I’m here to help you’—do all sorts of things.”

Within weeks after the passage of the bill, Sebelius sent letters to all of the State’s Departments of Insurance and Offices of Attorneys General to put everyone on high alert. “This is something that we’re going to take very, very seriously,” she said.

So what can you do to protect yourself? First and foremost trust that little voice in your head, and remember if something seems fishy—it probably is. And most importantly before you purchase any Health Insurance plan from any company, check with your State’s Department of Insurance to see if they are indeed licensed to sell insurance, and also check with the Better Business Bureau for any complaints against them.

Medigap insurance and Medicare Advantage can be thought of two approaches to accomplishing the same thing. Original government Medicare is very good medical coverage for seniors, but it does not cover every medical expense you may incur as you get older, nor was it designed to.

Medigap and Medicare advantage health insurance plans are both designed to make up for those shortfalls or “gaps” in traditional Medicare coverage, albeit in different ways. With a Medicare Advantage plan you are enrolling in a Heath Maintenance type of insurance plan from a private insurance company to provide for all of your Medicare Parts A and B coverage, as well as for the benefits traditional Medicare does not offer. Medicare Advantage is also known as Medicare Part C. You pay a monthly premium for your entire Medicare C, or Medicare Advantage insurance policy.

With Medigap, you enroll in traditional government Medicare, and then supplement that coverage with an additional health insurance policy purchased from a private health insurer. Unlike Medicare Advantage, a Medigap Plan does not replace any Parts of original Medicare. Medigap insurance can only be sold to people who are enrolled in original Medicare and is designed to pay for those expenses in whole or in part that Medicare does.

In some of the newer and more affordable Medigap plans, specifically Plan N and Plan M, there may be copays involved. However all Medigap plans will help you to minimize going out of pocket for the medical expenses that traditional Medicare does not cover.

Deciding which is right for you – Medigap or Medicare Advantage is very much contingent upon your lifestyle, medical needs and budget. It is best to discuss your particular situation with a qualified, independent Medigap specialist like you can find here on by clicking on your state on Medigap.com.

It is kind of a strange, almost paradoxical relationship between living a long life and healthcare spending. Of course we all want to live as healthy a lifestyle as possible, and enjoy a long retirement, but statistics show that it is just a fact that the longer you live, the more you will spend on healthcare.

That is why it is important to plan to minimize your healthcare costs in your retirement years. And a Medigap Health insurance policy is one great way to do that. Medigap insurance, sometimes also called Medicare Supplemental insurance, is designed to pick up the “gaps” in original Medicare, and therefore minimize the amount you will have to pay out of pocket for non-covered Part A and Part B medical expenses.

Having an adequate Medigap insurance plan in place to help with your healthcare costs is just like having home owners insurance  – you know that it is going to come in handy the older your house gets.

There are several different Medigap plans to choose from. They have different benefits and different rates. The plans are standardized, meaning that a given lettered plan A-N must have the same benefits offered by any company in any state – but since they are sold by private companies, the premiums can and do differ. Depending on your particular needs, lifestyle, and budget, there is bound to be a supplemental Medicare insurance plan that is right for you. You can get a snapshot of the various plans, and the additional benefits they offer by logging on to medicare.gov.

Medigap helps you to control your healthcare costs simply because there are so many plans to choose from. By honestly evaluating your health and lifestyle situation, you get to choose from an extensive menu of benefits, and select only the ones you need, so you are not over paying for the ones that you do not. And the good news is some of the supplement plans are now more affordable than ever. But no matter what Medigap plan you choose, you will save money on your healthcare costs over time. Without a Medigap plan, as you get older, you would soon discover just how big the gaps in original Medicare can be, which could lead to even greater holes – in your wallet!

COBRA is the federal program that permits you to stay on your company’s health insurance plan after you lose your job. On the surface that sounds like a good thing, but COBRA has always been a mixed blessing – because while the program ensures that you can continue your coverage, you have to pay for the whole monthly premium yourself.

Once your employer’s share of paying for medical insurance is removed, people get a real clear picture of just how valuable their employer based affordable health insurance really was. According to the National Business Group on Health the average annual COBRA premium for a single individual with a PPO health insurance plan was over  $5,000 in 2010, for family coverage the figure was over  $15,000. That is a  heavy duty chunk of change if you are not working.

As part of the original Stimulus Bill the Obama administration recognized this burden, and provided funds to give help to pay up to 65% of COBRA premiums for qualifying individuals and families

In December of 2009, Congress voted to continue the eligibility dates for the subsidies for another 15 months. When that program expired this past February, it was again extended, to the end of March 2010, and then once again to the First of June.

The original Bill to which the COBRA subsidy was attached also extended unemployment insurance and canceled a 21 percent cut that was made in Medicare payouts to doctors.

That bill also makes other changes to taxes and spending, however it did not include the COBRA subsidy when the House passed it at the end of May.

The COBRA subsidy also was conspicuously left out of the Senate version of the bill, which was being debated on the floor up until the current recess.

In order to give more out of work Americans access to affordable health insurance, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) has offered the COBRA subsidy as a separate amendment, but it’s chances of passing are not very good. Said Casey to the Senate body. “Americans who lose their coverage through job loss cannot be expected to purchase expensive health care plans while they’re unemployed. We ought to give them some measure of peace of mind so they can concentrate on finding a job instead of worrying about whether they or someone in their family, a loved one, is going to get the medical treatment that they deserve.”

E-health, or the online communication between patients and providers, has steadily inclined with the increasing use of computers and individual’s access to the internet.  Recent studies examining the use of e-mail, mobile phones and other web-based innovations have shown that these technologies can help establish better care for patients.

A recent testing of 35,423 Kaiser Permanente patients with various hypertension/diabetes combinations resulted in a proved increase in the overall effectiveness of care when patients used e-mail to correspond with health care providers.  Yi Yvonne Zhou of Kaiser Permanente and colleagues documented these results and maintains that utilizing a secure electronic method for communication and housing records will improve the health of our citizens.  Such methods must be maintained, encouraged and consistently implemented whenever possible throughout the new health care reform to ensure individuals receive the best comprehensive care.

With the passage of the healthcare bill the individual and small business health insurance markets were rewritten entirely, in the hopes of offering more affordable coverage in a typically expensive medical coverage venue.

But what about the millions of Americans who get their insurance through their employer? This large population of about 160 million people has been the focus of concern for the Democratic party, who need to find a way for them to keep their insurance even as federal mandates come into effect mandating costs and coverage.

In an effort to protect large employer provided health insurance plans a new set of rules were released this week for the medical coverage plans that will be considered “grandfathered in” to this new insurance market.

An insurance plan is said to be “grandfathered in” if it is exempt from the mandates that came with the healthcare bill. Employers who continue to offer these plans will also be exempt from the new mandates, and from the fines that come with it for not offering coverage or for not offering a minimum of covered services.

Retirement health insurance plans, for example, will be completely exempt from the new healthcare bill mandates.

However, there is a catch for large employers offering insurance to their current workforce: the plans can only be considered “grandfathered in” if they aren’t changed significantly.

For example, while employers will be allowed to raise the premiums paid by their employees, they won’t be able to raise co-pays beyond $5 or 15% plus the rate of medical inflation. And, employers won’t be able to lower their own contributions to their employees’ premiums by more than 5%.

And what about benefits? While employers won’t be allowed to completely cut them from their health insurance, they will be able to modify them. For example, health insurance plans offered by large companies or employers that cover prescription drugs must continue to do so, though they can change the list of drugs covered if they want to.

Larger companies who change their insurance plans beyond these guidelines will no longer be able to call them “grandfathered in” and will therefore be subject to the healthcare bill mandates in 2014 that require a minimum of coverage at controlled costs.

By creating this more flexible set of rules for employer provided health insurance the White House hopes that larger companies that already offer medical coverage will be incentivized to continue doing so.

Opponents of the bill argue that when it becomes cheaper for companies to pay fines for not offering coverage than to offer the coverage, employees will lose their insurance.

Supporters of the bill say that larger companies will save money by continuing to offer coverage based on these special rules, and that individuals who aren’t offered insurance by their employers will be able to get more affordable coverage from state-run insurance exchanges due to be up and running by 2014.

What will be covered by these insurance plans – whether they come from employers or the insurance exchanges – still isn’t 100% clear. Preventative services are mandated for the insurance to be offered from exchanges, along with many prescription drugs, but since employers’ current plans will be exempt from the new bill, there’s no way to compare coverage until 2014.

This week New York Governor David Paterson signed legislation into law that will give the state 60 days to veto rate hikes in individual health insurance that are deemed excessive. The same law, which also applies to small business health insurance, had been previously phased out in 1997, during which time New York health insurance rates rose to record highs.

The new law will pertain to the policies of about 3 million New Yorkers, all of whom rely on individual or small business health insurance to meet their health care needs. New York has famously high prices for their insurance – running around $6,630 for single adults and $13,296 for families. This is twice the national average, according to recent polls on health insurance costs.

A similar bill has also been introduced in California legislation, and other states including Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are investigating similar legal avenues in order to control rising insurance premiums. In New Mexico the approval of individual rate hikes of up to 21% has drawn significant political backlash, and negative press aimed at the rate hikes has led to a public furor that other state officials seem to have noticed.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius expressed support for Governor Paterson’s signing of the bill, particularly since her office had recently suggested that all states review their ability to control rising insurance prices in order to protect consumers from unfair rate inflation.

Under the new law, the state will have 60 days to veto individual health insurance rate hikes, and the state must provide reasonable data supporting the decision to deny the rate increase.

The insurance industry has countered claims of unfair rate hikes, suggesting that rising rates reflect the growing costs of health care, and that by limiting their ability to raise rates the state is placing unfair and unrealistic expectations upon insurance agencies.

Consumer advocate Mark P. Scherzer remarked that New York’s insurance companies were enjoying “outlandish profits” and that consumers will be saved a lot of money thanks to Paterson’s new law.

This type of law is seen as reflective of future state participation in all health insurance policies; insurance exchanges are slated to begin operation in 2014. At that time rate hikes will be legally overseen by the state and federal government, and spending on actual medical care (versus advertising and profits) will be mandated at 85%.

New York’s new law includes a similar mandate that requires health insurance companies to spend 82% of their profits on medical care, up from 75% for small business health insurance and 80% for individual policies.

The divisive nature of the recently passed health care bill has left many Americans wondering exactly what kind of medical coverage will be available to them in 2014.

For those struggling with individual health insurance or small business health insurance premiums, the idea of receiving tax breaks and finding an affordable option that still offers decent coverage is a great one.

But for those who already have employer provided medical coverage there is still concern that the plans they enjoy now won’t be available to them for much longer. Democrats are currently walking a fine line with employers, trying to maintain a flexibility that makes offering medical coverage attractive without overburdening workers with rising costs, many of whom didn’t want much change in the health insurance sector to begin with.

And then there are seniors, who are wondering when they will receive rebate checks will help them to pay for expensive medications, even as some Medicaid and Medicare services are trimmed down.

And now a study out of the University Buffalo finds that the uninsured are far more likely to die of injury than the insured. Even those individuals with Medicaid fared better and had greater survival rates than the uninsured.

Sadly, similar data has been found for men and women who suffer from cancer, and heart disease.

The reason? Researchers think that what’s likely happening is that individuals without any medical coverage aren’t getting preventative treatments that could minimize their likelihood of dying of disease. When these people are injured, they are more likely to die because of the poor state of their health.

And before they die they’ll probably incur tremendous hospital bills that will eventually be absorbed by the hospitals who treat them, the insurance companies who deal with hospitals, and the public who must contend with high cost medical coverage due to the rising cost of health care.

Clearly having no insurance at all is a bad idea. On the other end of the spectrum a government run health care system – the so-called public option – was abandoned because its costs were deemed to high.

Somewhere between the two lies the answer to our health care problems. A recent study by the RAND corporation finds that the current health care bill will cover the most people at the lowest cost to the Federal Government. Whether or not that will prove true remains to be seen. But as many optimists are pointing out, 3 1/2 years is a long time to make improvements on the Health Care Bill until it can provide Americans with exactly the right type of medical coverage market.

Now that the health care bill has been voted into law, lobbyists are changing their tactics, shifting from a focus either for or against the bill to one of interpreting the bill and implementing the new mandates in a way that helps their cause.

For example, the National Federation of Independent Business is currently working to make the tax cuts scheduled for small businesses easier to understand and receive. Many small businesses will be eligible for the cuts this year.

They are also asking for a clarification of the law as it applies to those companies who already offer insurance, and who will therefore qualify for the “grandfather” clause that exempts them from some rules.

The AARP is also on the case, working to safeguard the physical and financial well-being of America’s seniors. Checks from the federal government designed to close the “doughnut hole” between what Medicare pays for and what prescription drugs cost for most seniors are due to go out later this year. The AARP wants to make sure those checks go where they need to go, and that other promises made to seniors during the creation of the bill are kept.

The American Nurses Association is also lobbying right now to help nurses fill the gap between a growing shortfall of primary care physicians and the number of aging Americans in need of home-based care. TheANA is hoping that by allowing nurses to direct medical teams in the care of Medicare beneficiaries, nurses will enjoy more authority in their field.

And the American Hospital Association is campaigning for their own say in how state-based insurance pools mandated for the year 2014 will be arranged and implemented. Hospitals and insurers commonly negotiate over the costs of procedures and treatments, and hospitals don’t want to end up spending more than they already do on medical costs.

In terms of actual enrollment in the new health care bill, the consumer group Families USA is working with hospitals, insurers, drug makers and more to make sure that Americans can easily and quickly sign up for health insurance or Medicaid before medical coverage becomes mandated by law. Increasing medical coverage will also ease the burden of medical costs carried by hospitals that regularly pay to treat the uninsured.

These and many other lobbying associations are focusing heavily on how the new health care bill will impact the economy as well as the health of American citizens. The law itself is fairly complicated, but fortunately there’s another 3 1/2 years before the majority of the new mandates take effect, giving both supporters and opponents of the bill plenty of time to struggle over exactly how the final health care bill will look.

President Obama stated this week that the new health care bill has already helped millions of Americans, adding that many health insurance companies have begun allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plan ahead of schedule.

All major health insurance companies have also officially discontinued the practice of rescission – or canceling health insurance policies when people get sick – ahead of the September deadline that would have made it illegal to do so.

However, concerns regarding how the bill will play out in 2014 in terms of group health insurance have surfaced this week. In particular, some people are concerned that large employers will find it more affordable to stop providing health insurance to employees and to pay the fines that would be levied against them instead.

These employees would then be required to purchase their coverage from the health insurance exchanges set to be up and running in all 50 states by then.

According to the new bill, companies of 50 or more employees would face a fine if they did not offer health insurance to their employees. But according to documents released by AT&T this week, dropping employee coverage altogether and paying the fines would save them millions of dollars.

According to the Dallas News, AT&T paid around $2.4 billion dollars last year to insure their employees. If they dropped their insurance plan in 2014, and paid the fines instead, they would only have to pay $600 million dollars.

These figures concern those analysts who fear that the insurance offered by the exchanges won’t be as good in quality as that offered by big companies like AT&T.

In response, supporters of the bill argue that the money saved would be good for the economy, providing big companies with extra funds and therefore reason to hire more employees.

Or to offer more raises, and better compensation in general, to those employees they already have.

Furthermore they suggest that because the exchanges will be subject to federal oversight, and required to offer a minimum of coverage and preventative care at affordable prices, people shopping for health insurance on the exchanges will still get good coverage.

However, until 2014 there is no way to know whether either side is correct. The coverage required of the health insurance exchanges doesn’t exist yet, and these portions of the law won’t go into effect for some time. Whether or not the law will even look the same by then is speculative.

And currently, AT&T has no plans to cancel its health insurance plan.