Here are just a few of my favorite work-related books:
So, that’s… (in no particular order other than how they look on my shelf :>) …
Today I added speed work to my run training for the first time. I’m not sure if I’m doing it right, but I decided today to do 1/4 mile walk/jog then 1/4 mile fast, then alternate those two for 3.25 miles. It went pretty well. I’m icing the pain in my legs right now while I type this. 
| .25 | 13:01 |
| .25 | 7:57 |
| .25 | 12:00 |
| .25 | 7:23 |
| .25 | 11:33 |
| .25 | 7:34 |
| .25 | 10:45 |
| .25 | 7:34 |
| .25 | 13:19 |
| .25 | 7:21 |
| .25 | 12:36 |
| .25 | 7.26 |
| .25 | 13:00 |
I’m hoping those training paces will help me hit my goal of 24:00 in the 5k race I’m running on April 18th. That means an average per-mile pace of 7:42. Man, does that sound fast to me. I don’t know how certain people I’ve seen run almost 5 minute mile pace on 5ks.
Wish me luck.
I read an article this morning that kept stating the Affordable Care Act (ACA) guaranteed health insurance for everyone. Yeah, I guess it does, but you could also say that it forces health insurance on everyone (or you can pay a penalty/tax to opt out).
Look, I’m all for allowing everyone to have insurance. In fact I have a very close family member bitten by the “pre-existing condition” issue where insurance companies want to exclude a certain situation because it almost certain will be an issue again at some point in the future. That’s ridiculous.
Insurance companies (not just health insurance) are structured to get all the benefit but few risks. What happens when you don’t make any claims and the insurance company makes strong profits off you? Normally your rates increase. What happens when you do make claims and the insurance company actually has to pay money for your benefits? Guess what – your rates rise… drastically and in some cases your insurance can be canceled.
What happens though if the ACA goes fully into effect and an unintended side-effect shows up? Maybe way more currently non-insured decide to opt-out and pay the penalty. Maybe because of population age averages in different areas the cost-average benefit where needed most isn’t actually realized. What happens if everyone is allowed insurance (can’t be denied) but the rates are unsustainable? Either unreasonable or unaffordable by the individual, or perhaps the insurance company is forced into a maximum rate that guarantees they’ll lose a ton of money on that “account” (I bet they remove wording about people actually being people in insurance company documents). Guess what – if an insurance company is losing a ton of money on a certain group of accounts, you can be sure they will make that money up somewhere. Either rates across the pool will need to rise or benefits will be cut or they’ll somehow otherwise figure a way to get their money.
As stated before… I don’t have an answer. What really frustrates me though is not understanding why we haven’t already taken some baby steps in the right direction rather than such a huge change in the overall system. Why haven’t we changed the way laws and regulations are here in the USA so that insurance companies can compete more across state lines?* It seems that opening competition alone could potentially have some nice benefits. Obama said in the debate that step wouldn’t solve the problem. Maybe not, but what’s the downside of it? What wasn’t that a no-brainer first step to at least see if it would help some.
*My company provides health insurance, so other than the fact that our rates have gone crazy under the current administration (which is actually a big deal) my own and my staff’s insurance isn’t impacted much by all this. BUT, with our rates climbing at an insane pace, I wanted to get some competitive quotes to make sure we were providing the best insurance value – benefits for the given rates. What I found was that my company is very limited in who we can even get rates from because of the restrictions that exist limiting where clients (business or personal) of insurance companies can reside. So we’re locked into a “best of the worst” situation with a very small handful of options to choose from.
So… I sit and wait and watch, wondering what will happen with all this health insurance non-sense. I look at the extra money I pay annually now over several years ago and wish I could have spent that on staff (yes, it’s THAT much money). I look at family members who need to benefit from health insurance changes but with so many unknowns might actually NOT benefit when everything is enacted and running for a while. I look at the alarming pace that private practice doctors are closing their doors – putting us at the mercy of a smaller pool of providers.
I sure hope I’m wrong, but the signs so far aren’t good. I hope the impending changes don’t raise rates and hurt small businesses. I hope the people who need insurance most can afford it. I hope this all works out because it sure is a lot of work (and drama) if it doesn’t work – or even makes the current situation worse.
As one of many corporate benefits, my company provides 100% covered (FREE) health insurance to its employees. That insurance includes a prescription plan and a vision plan. I’m told it’s a very good plan even comparable to some of the best plans at big companies. This is provided not because the government told us we had to, but because a) we believe it is the right thing to do and; b) it is part of a complete package (and work environment/experience) that helps us attract and retain quality people.
I read something that the Republican party put out the other day with some statistics about North Carolina business environment and costs (we are based in NC). One of the things this announcement stated was a “5.2% Health Insurance Premium Hike” for NC businesses. I’m skeptical about most things coming from either party, but I read that and it didn’t sit quite right. Not that I felt it to was too high but it seemed too low.
So, I did a little research and looked at some numbers. Specifically for MY BUSINESS – this obviously varies by business – the average monthly health care premium that we pay per employee has increased 77% from 2008 to 2012. Yes, seriously, 77%. That isn’t a spin – it’s a numerical fact. And it’s a pretty big deal for small businesses who had already accepted to cover employee health care costs, which are frequently one of the largest expenses for small businesses.
I have personally spoken with our insurance company over these past few years about the increases and they have great excuses reasons for the additional costs. The reasons are that they are starting to implement items from the ACA (Affordable Care Act). That’s great, I guess, if you are helped by these specific ACA items – and I know some people are.
But what about the “affordable” part of the ACA? In theory it should make insurance more affordable for individuals (unless you are healthy and forced into insurance you wouldn’t have bought previously, so in that case your cost increases 100%) but is it the intent (or fair or reasonable) to shift such a HUGE increase of cost over to employers? It isn’t like employers get this extreme discount and we’re gaming the system so should pay more. That isn’t the case. If you believe that – stop because it isn’t true. I can tell you that from a purely financial perspective many businesses would be better off dropping insurance for their employees and just paying the ACA penalties. The fines run $2,000-$3,000 per employee depending on some specifics and I can tell you that even at the $3k/employee fine rate, my company would save a LOT of money.
Insurance is very expensive and it’s getting worse. Would I advocate dropping insurance for our employees? No way! (See paragraph one.) Do I think there are some issues with health care costs and availability for people – especially people with pre-existing conditions? Yes! Do I believe that the ACA has moved us closer to a good affordable solution and that the additional measures to be implemented will move us closer still? No. Not based on what I’ve seen so far.
What would I propose? It’s a bigger topic than I can tackle and I consider myself ignorant on most of the related facts. That said, it seems like a good first step when the issue first came up years ago might have been to “open borders” so that insurance companies could be more competitive. As a business we are limited who we can get insurance from based on location (state specific). Removing some of those restrictions might open competitiveness, giving businesses (and individuals) more options and better price shopping.
It also seems that being more flexible with “groups” would help. If I wanted to start a group of “The Kingsley Family” that anyone in my extended family could join, it seems that we should be able to offer insurance under that group and get averaged-out group rates. Why would an insurance agency care? They’d get large numbers of covered people, which helps spread the costs, lowering the averages. Why so many restrictions on the types of groups and how hare they are to set up?
I’m sure there are issues with those ideas. Certainly people more “in the know” about insurance than myself have already pondered those ideas, but still, looking at facts and data, it appears that the currently implemented changes have had some substantial negative impacts on at least certain groups in certain areas.
Today is job shadow day at my daughter’s school. Just showing here WordPress right now – already covered some marketing, social media, SEO, cost-analysis, and more… much, much, more coming after lunch today!
Recent Comments