While you might be shopping for your home, health or auto insurance one place that you might not consider looking is AAA. Now I am certain that you have probably seen the great benefits of having AAA as a regular member, but you can obtain even more benefits by using them to have your insurance with. I know from my own experience that I have found that AAA has consistently given my family better insurance rates for health and auto than what I have been able to find anywhere else. Here are the benefits of using AAA for your health and auto insurance.
The first great wait on that you can enjoy by using AAA for your insurance purposes is that you can typically enjoy a gross cost rate. I know that for me I had a health insurance quote from another company for the proper same plan and AAA managed to give me a rate that was three hundred dollars cheaper than the other company’s lowest available rate. I also noticed that I have this benefit with my auto insurance as well except the savings was close to five hundred dollars for the entire year with more coverage than what I was getting.
The second benefit is that you will be able to enjoy some more of the benefits of your AAA membership. I know that for me being able to use my AAA membership for something more than just road side assistance or discounts on food or hotels is nice. I do not know about you, but like many people I do not need to use these features this often because the cost of traveling anymore is so expensive.
The third benefit of using AAA for your insurance is that it is my experience that you will typically be dealing with a great agent. I know that if I call my local insurance agent that is with AAA all that I have to do is mention who I am and they will know right away what I am calling about. This is nice and can establish a titanic relationship with you and your insurance agent.
AAA has many benefits that people might not realize. One of the best features that I have found is the amount of money that you can save while you are an AAA member. I know that my savings from that alone is enough to pay for many of my other bills that I have throughout the year.
Filed under State Farm Auto Insurance by on Mar 14th, 2011. Comment. 
When you ask any American or non-American person, what they think about America’s culture, we often hear something like “America is a Melting Pot.” United States of America has been described as “melting pot” because it resides several cultures, races and religions to fabricate its possess unique culture. The imperative characteristics about American culture is the right to free will and the ability to make individual choices with limited intervention from the Government; some clarify it as, “Classical Liberalism” or just “Liberalism.”
In present day America, a proposal for a National Health Insurance is a significant debate on whether the integrity of an American’s right to choose is under threat or whether it is actually preserving Liberalism as defined by President John F. Kennedy, “If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not leisurely, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.” 1
In an article published in Wall Street Journal [WSJ] on April 12, 2009, “The End of Private Health Insurance,” the author gives an insight in to how implementation of National Health Insurance can affect the people in America.2 The content of the article should appeal to every American, however as this article appears in the WSJ one would assume that in order to define and relate to author’s point of view the audience should be familiar with the basic information regarding the existing role of Medicare and private health insurance companies in the health care system.
This article refers to National Health Insurance as “public option,” an insurance program which is essentially financed by the taxpayers and managed by the Government; also this option is open to everyone. The author conveys his position on this debate whether this Insurance policy really is modest and affordable or a threat to taxpayers’ individual choice in an effort to cover the uninsured by highlighting these points below:
1) National Health Insurance will become default coverage for the uninsured Americans.
2) It will compete with the private insurance companies.
3) Overall spending will be controlled over time by paying less for medical services, drugs and technology.
4) The hospitals and clinics will be reimbursed on a fee schedule basis; with the idea of “take-it-or-leave-it.”
5) Allows people who are glad with their current insurance policies to keep it.
So what does all this translate into? What does it mean for the people who are uninsured? What does it mean for the people who are currently insured through private insurance companies? How will this succor the hospitals and original deteriorating economic situation? Is this really in the best interest of the American society? Is it true that America is proceeding towards what’s called Socialized Medicine?
If Congress adopts this “public option,” the taxpayers will be forced to pay more taxes in order to cover the uninsured and there will be relatively low premium rates for enrollment due to access to the national treasury as compared to the private insurance rates. Therefore, private insurance companies will be obligated to offer benefit packages similar to those offered by the public insurance. Depending on the payment levels the congress adopts, the Lewin Group in a recent analysis predicted that a 131 million people will enroll in public option and 119 million people will shift out of or lose private coverage. The Lewin group is a consulting company that provides solutions for the issues related to health care and human services. It serves the public agencies, non profit organizations, industry associations and private companies in Unites States.3
As far as the hospitals and physicians are concerned, they will not be able to announce the amount of reimbursement which is offered to them, which could result into cost shifting by accepting fewer patients at a given time. This in turn could mean that patients will have to wait to see their doctors and wait in queues to have procedures like MRI and Hip replacement for example. This could also mean that hospitals may have to cut down on employees if the patient traffic reduces and if overall income reduces at a given time. It is crucial to warn the public that any conception which provides universal coverage will force the government to curtail the spiraling cost of health care. This will result in limitations in physician choice, create long delays in diagnosis and treatment and ultimately lead to widespread rationing of health care.4
It not only affects acute care settings and primary care physicians, it affects greatly to the profession of Physical Therapy. As patients wait in lines to go through common procedures such as total hip replacements, the degenerative disease progresses and patients report deterioration of Quality of Life. Moreover, the post surgical prognosis is worse in patients who get operated on in the later stage of the disease as compared to the patients who glean operated early on in the disease process.5Besides the surgical interventions, as patients wait to see their primary care physicians to get referrals for physical therapy, acute episodes of low succor pain for example may already have progressed in to chronic conditions; which not only affects the rehabilitation prognosis but also affects psychological aspects, activity level and over all Quality of Life.
Some scholars debate on whether the National Health Insurance proposal is a step towards Socialized Medicine or if it remains inconclusive from its accessible definition. “Socialized medicine” refers to health system in which the government owns and operates both the financing of health care and its delivery.6 The investigation of this definition suggests that classic socialism involves government or collective ownership of the means and distribution of production; hence truly socialized medicine doesn’t exist anywhere in the world.However, it would be valid to argue that America’s health sector is already more than half socialized because government purchases 46% of all medical care. Therefore, technically socialized medicine can be defined not based on how much is spent on the medical care but who decides.7
The intent of the National Health Insurance policy may be to practice Liberalism as defined by J.F.K and an act of benevolence by American government, however in an effort to provide coverage to the medically uninsured population the disadvantages in adopting this policy has a substantial triumph over its advantages. Ultimately, it is up to an individual’s discretion whether to support or not to support the public option from the obtainable facts by media and literature.
References
1. Modern Liberalism in the United States. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States. Accessed May 15, 2009.
Classical liberalism. . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism. Accessed May 15, 2009.
2. The Slay of Private Health Insurance- When government ‘competes,’ guess who always sins? The Wall Street Journal. April 12 2009.
3. The Lewin Group. . http://www.lewin.com/WhyLewin/AboutUs/. Accessed May 15, 2009.
4. Dr R. Scott Wright. Both Sides: Let the buyer beware of universal health insurance. Post-Bulletin. 2009.
5. Marieke Ostendorf MSc, Erik Buskens MD, PhD, Henk van Stel PhD, Augustus Schrijvers PhD, Louis Marting MD, Wouter Dhert MD, PhD and Abharam Verbout MD, PhD. Waiting for total hip arthroplasty: Avoidable loss in quality time and preventable deterioration. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2004;19(3):302-309.
6. Uwe E. Reinhardt. What is ‘Socialized Medicine’? : A Taxonomy of Health Care Systems. The New York Times. 2009.
7. Michael F. Cannon. Does Barack Obama Support Socialized Medicine? . The Cato Journal. 2008.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Wiki by on Feb 26th, 2011. Comment.
Auto insurance is something you have to have in many states. With auto insurance rates continuing to rise, you can always use a few tips to lower your personal costs. The following tips can help you reduce the amount of your auto insurance rates. In addition to the items listed below, it is always a good idea to ask your agent about any additional items that can crop your rates. Don’t expect them to tell you if you don’t ask.
The first thing that can reduce your auto insurance rates is the type of car you have. Before you remove a new or used vehicle you should check with your insurance agent. Rates will differ depending on whether the car is current or old, two door or four door, and what type of features the vehicle has.
If you already have a vehicle, there are still some improvements that can lower your auto insurance. Security and safety are what you are trying to accomplish. Installing a security system will, in most cases, reduce the amount you pay for auto insurance. In some cases, having anti-lock brakes can also lower your auto insurance. Some states even require insurance companies to give discounts for anti-lock brakes.
In addition to the type of car you drive, the way you drive your car will effect your auto insurance rates. You can lower your insurance rates by driving safely and staying out of trouble. Even if your driving record isn’t perfect true now, if you stay out of trouble long enough it will lower your auto insurance.
Another way to lower your auto insurance is to select a safe driving course. Ask your insurance agent about the requirements for this type of discount before you label up for a class. They may even be able to mutter you to the proper course. Drivers Ed can also lower your auto insurance depending on your age and when you completed the course. If you qualify for this discount you may also want to inquire about discounts for good grades.
Finally, you can lower your insurance by raising your deductible. Most states have a certain deductible that you can’t go over. However, if you did not discuss your deductible when you went to get insurance, than you may have a lower deductible than you need. Just remember that your deductible will be the amount you have to pay if you out of your occupy pocket.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Quotes by on Feb 24th, 2011. Comment.
As money gets increasingly tight, consumers are trying to establish wherever possible. Insurance policies are one place that people typically look to cut costs. But, are there ways you can save when it comes to insurance without jeopardizing your coverage?
People may not always be taking the wright decisions where to crop things.
There are some strategies out there that you have to educate yourself about and ALWAYS remember ask your agent of other saving venues.
Many insured believe so. One design of cutting benefit on your premium costs is to reduce the dwelling or liability limits on your homeowner's policy. Similarly, you could also request a reduction in the liability limits on your auto insurance policy .
However, not only do these methods fail to save you money in the long rush, they also make you increasingly vulnerable to risk. Acquire in consideration like, how much you could lose if a judge decided against you in a liability suit, or someone was hurt in your home?
A wiser course of action is to increase your policy deductibles. On a homeowner's policy, raising your deductible from $250 to a $500 could realize a premium savings of 10 to 15 %. You could also consider raising the deductibles on the physical damage section of your auto insurance to save money on the premium. Having a $500 deductible on both comprehensive and collision can save you as much as 30 percent. A $1,000 deductible may result in even more savings. That is a clear path you might want to consider.
Many insureds argue that if they do need to file a claim, they won't have $500 to cover the newly increased deductible. While $500 may sound like a large amount of money to bag together, it is actually only $250 more than you would have needed if you collected had the original $250 deductible. Keep in mind that with the savings benefit you will get from a higher deductible, you should be able to save that extra $250 in less than 2 years.
For those larger savings, consider a graduated approach. If you are not financially able to go from paying a $250 deductible to paying $1,000 deductible, raise your deductible to $500 now, and put the money you save into a dedicated savings account for the purpose of accumulating money to increase your deductible again. When you have saved enough in the account, increase the deductible to $1,000. So, in other words, you can increase your deductible at least every 6 months to reach a higher deductible ammount; but again the sooner you do that the sooner the saving starts.
Raising your deductible will definitely save you money over the long-term. More importantly, it will not put you at an increased financial risk.
Most importantly we hope you drive safely and do not have to file a claim any time soon!
Filed under State Farm Auto Insurance by on Feb 20th, 2011. Comment.
Within the two documents, A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke, and The English Bill of Rights, 1689 drafted by act of Parliament, we regain a similar subject being presented in two vastly different ways. The common thread running through both pieces, and the fundamental point to illustrating the importance of religion in English civil and political life is the idea of “just and moderate government.”[1] John Locke and Parliament both try for this ideal through different approaches. As to the extent of tensions and problems created by differing religious beliefs in the England of the time, we will be able to examine those difficulties through the efforts of those suitable and philosophical minds that created the primary sources.
First, I will discuss the idea of justice, and its dispensing in religious and civil spheres. Locke refers to civil magistrates as those whose duty it is “to find unto all…the just possession of these things belonging to this life.”[2] Conversely, we can pick that another role of the civil magistrate is to prosecute the infractions incurred against those natural rights, stated by Locke to be “life, liberty and estate.”[3] Locke spends the entire letter detailing the ways in which religion possesses its rights and powers within the religious sphere, while secular governments maintain their authority within the civil sphere. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, there is a tone of concept due, no doubt, to the religious strife that Locke had seen in his absorb lifetime, including the English Civil War and its abolition of the Anglican Church’s monopoly on Christian worship in England.[4]
The English Bill of Rights argues that justice can only be served when civil law is carried out under the auspices of Christian (read Protestant) doctrine. Justice, in the eyes of the parliamentary document, is thought of as “[that] demand of their rights [which] they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.”[5] In other words, the private true proceedings adjudicated by the king and the existence of a standing army were characteristics of power hungry Catholics. Parliament saw in James II echoes of the Inquisition and the absolute power of the Pope. Such an imbalance of power was not just to the people. Whereas Locke stresses the justice that is expedient when religion and government are separated, the English Bill of Rights, 1689 places the blame for injustice on the head of King James II and the Catholics. It is not entirely ironic that the philosopher proffers a solution, while the governing body only finds a culprit for the problem.
Moderate government is what is ultimately hoped for in Locke’s letter. A single sentence seems to outline the cautious line walked by government: “Only the magistrate ought always to be very careful that he do not misuse his authority to the oppression of any Church, under pretence of public good.”[6] Moderation involves the use of compromise and marvelous judgment. Locke emphasizes that those acts that are crimes against the laws of the land are not to be tolerated, as opposed to the toleration of things that may rush counter to another religion’s creed.
The way the English Bill of Rights seeks a moderate government is far more visible than how the document seeks just government. The enumerated rights of freeholders in English society provided a framework for the understanding of a government whose sole responsibility is to be the receptacle of common consent. Such a government does not enforce the specific tolerations advocated by Locke, but instead creates a moderation between the honest of the sovereign and the rights of the people (all within a Protestant ideal).
These documents illustrate the importance of religion in English civil and political life by both seeking for a “just and moderate government” and relying upon religion as a necessity to accomplish that goal. Parliament sought for a religious (Protestant and Church of England) control of the civil order. Locke wanted a toleration and separation of the mutual rights of civil and religious spheres. While the strivings for this goal were disparate in context, both were, as St. Paul wrote to the Ephesians, “endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[7]
[1] Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. 1689. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/locke/ECT/toleraxx.htm. The phrase “unbiased and moderate government” is used by Locke in the essay to picture various governing entities throughout the world. He contrasts this with the oppression that leads to “seditions…frequently raised upon pretence of religion.” However, this does not explain all treason or uprising, and Locke attributes such action to “the common disposition of mankind… who when …under any heavy burthen endeavour naturally to shake off the yoke that galls their necks.”
[2] Ibid.
[3] Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge University Press, 1988, Chapter 2, section vi
[4]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War
[5]The English Bill of Rights 1689. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm
[6] Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. 1689. http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1651-1700/locke/ECT/toleraxx.htm.
[7] Ephesians 4:3. King James Bible. Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 1484.
Filed under Automobile Insurance Wiki by on Feb 17th, 2011. Comment.
