NLIC.org

Sarah Said:

What Does the Public Option Health Insurance Really Mean?

We Answered:

This is not a question. This is a rant. And an ill-conceived one, utterly devoid of compassion or accurate facts.

Recently I visited a doctor and, over the course of 15 minutes of smalltalk, racked up a $600 out of pocket expense. I had health insurance I was purchasing myself, at considerable expense, but that that wasn't structured to pay such "small" fees. I couldn't afford better insurance anymore than I could afford that medical bill. I'm likely better educated than you, have a permanent address, and am a good credit risk. I'm attractive, middle class, and smell good. But if I were to become seriously ill or injured, I'd lose literally everything including, most likely, my health insurance plan. There are millions of people like me.

Do you think medical bankruptcy, a cause of nearly 60% of bankruptcies, is good for the economy? Do you think having your so-called indigent people able to obtain medical care only at ERs at considerable cost and often loss when regular, preventive visits to a GP would prevent most major health problems is fiscally sound? Do you think?

Morris Said:

Please Explain:Why didn't my PMI Insurance Companies bail out these banks?

We Answered:

Well, PMI only pays out AFTER THE HOUSE IS FORECLOSED. And we're not talking about houses that are getting foreclosed on here, we're talking about the issue of no one wanting to buy the sub prime mortgage. It's not the HOUSE causing the issue! It's the fact that no one wants to buy the mortgage - meaning that the paper value of the mortgage, is ZERO. No market value. It's still WORTH something! People are still paying their mortgages, and the property the mortgage is on, is still WORTH something! So it's all a PAPER loss, not a real loss.

PMI is only to cover the mortgage holder for a loss, AFTER FORECLOSURE. It doesn't "guarantee" that someone is willing to buy the mortgage papers. Which is what the deal is about.


The american taxpayer, is being punished here.

The "issue" is, the American government (congress, senate, and president) want credit to still be available, to people who are not credit worthy. So, in order to keep being able to give loans to high risk people who can't afford the loans, we're somehow going to cough up $700,000,000,000.

Me, personally, I don't want to cough up that money for a bailout, OR a cash payout to people with mortgages. I think that people who have spent beyond their means need to face the natural consequences. Because now, the GOVERNMENT is spending beyond it's means, and the consequences for THAT are really too horrible to think about.

Kenneth Said:

Our PMI Lender Canceled after closing?

We Answered:

What is happening to your loan? Is your mortgage company saying anything to you? I would call the mortgage company and ask.

It could be almost anything from good to bad.

Richard Said:

Low income home buying problem?

We Answered:

I'm afraid the other answers are right, you can't afford this right now. The 41% of the gross income has to cover your other debts, phone bills, electric, heating, water, cable, etc. Your credit score could also be affecting your ability to get this loan even if all your debt to income ratios are acceptable. Unfortunately everyone is not automatically entitled to getting a mortgage, it's something you have to work towards which has been made much harder recently with the credit crunch. One full time job at a decent rate or a large down payment would likely help your odds of getting this loan.

I'm also somewhat curious where you live that you can buy a house for $15K?? I think a hole in a wall in a horrible neighbourhood where I live costs at least 85K.

Justin Said:

Did u c this Wall St Journal article "Obamacare is all about rationing" What do you think?

We Answered:

The author of this article completely ignores the current rationing that is taking place under our current system of insurance coverage. Insurance companies do not pay for experimental procedures that they do not consider cost-effective. To oppose the proposed health care reform on that basis is not honest.

Also, the author's solution to our health care crisis is to raise taxes on the health care benefits that employers provide to employees. Somehow he concludes that this tax benefit results in "private overconsumption of health services." That connection is alleged but not supported.

In any case, placing further tax burdens on businesses and employees without any tangible health care coverage benefits to them or to others who are not currently covered does not address our major health care problems.

In addition, his solution to the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid is to raise deductibles and coinsurance. That type of action defeats and undermines the underlying purpose of such programs.

Also, the author ignores that there is nothing in the current proposed legislation that would prevent individuals from paying for and obtaining any treatment that they want. How the health care reform would change that aspect of the current system is not addressed at all.