Sunday, September 23, 2007

Be Careful What You Wish For

The following is a recent editorial from the Orange County Register:

Sunday, September 23, 2007
Today's editorial: On health care, beware what you wish for
Demagogues preying on natural fears have created a false sense of urgency for government-sponsored medical system.
An Orange County Register editorial

A recent poll informs us that nearly 70 percent of Californians believe the state's health care system needs major changes.

It's apparently such an urgent problem, say pollsters from the Public Policy Institute of California, that three fourths of those people are willing to buy into Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to heavily tax employers, health care providers and individuals to fix the perceived problem.

One might think health care is being denied these people. But virtually no one in California goes without health care. And, as syndicated columnist Mark Steyn notes on page 4 today, the vast majority who want health insurance have it, and it's generally paid for by someone else. So what's going on here?

There is a problem with the system. It's built on sand, as editorial writer Mark Landsbaum's page 1 column today explains. We shouldn't be surprised after decades of relying on others to pay our way, the institution of health care is teetering.

Private employers find it increasingly expensive to offer the full range of insurance coverage their employees expect, let alone to keep up with demands for new coverage for every conceivable medical treatment. Insurance usually is tied to employment, so when people lose jobs they lose insurance. Because insurers are forced to sell the full range of coverage, there's little leeway to tailor economical, a la carte packages beneficiaries might prefer. Hospital emergency rooms are closing because many who can't afford insurance use them as their family doctors. Fear of losing one's life savings is motive enough for most of us to cling desperately to a guarantee health insurance provides against financial devastation, should we develop a catastrophic illness.

It's a scenario ripe for demagoguery. There's no shortage of those ready to exploit, from Gov. Schwarzenegger to Hillary Clinton (as the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and Michael Tanner explain on page 1 today). The growing sense of urgency works to the advantage of those sounding the "government to the rescue" bugle call.

But if there's anything Californians, indeed Americans, should avoid, it's being stampeded into more government control over your health care. Rather than turn over your health care, insurance protection and personal choices to faceless, unaccountable government bureaucrats, now's the time to demand that bureaucracy begin releasing its grip on the system.

It's taken more than a half century to pervert the health care free market. The mess won't be cleaned up overnight. But to rush into even more of what corrupted the system will move us even farther in the wrong direction. A reasoned, systematic loosening of government's grip can prevent disaster. Now's a good time to begin.

Government should revoke all mandates limiting insurers' flexibility to meet market demand, and in that way greatly reduce costs. Insurance should be portable, rather than provided through employers, particularly when people change jobs an average of 10 times between the ages 18 and 38. Without government interference, people could shop for catastrophic coverage, if that's all they want, rather than pay top dollar for broad coverage with low-deductibles.

There will be challenges even the free market will struggle with, such as expensive, high-risk coverage for people with pre-existing, bad health. But once the market straightens out for the bulk of us, such issues can be dealt with more effectively and economically. Insurers and health care providers, out from under the costly, oppressive regulation of government, could very well find it in their own interest to create insurance pools for high-risk patients. Especially if doing it voluntarily keeps the government out. We urge everyone concerned with the teetering institution of health care to urge their elected representatives to turn away from more government, and toward more freedom.

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Hillary Clinton Health Plan

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently unveiled her proposed plan for healthcare reform. You can read the Clinton campaign's summary of their plan by visiting their website:

Hillary Clinton's Health Plan

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Monday, September 10, 2007

No Late Deals on our Health Care

The following is an article reprinted from the September 10 issue of the Orange County Register and written by Mike Villines, State Assembly GOP leader. You can visit his website linked through the title of this article for more information on California health care issues or visit this website for current updates: Republican Assembly on Health Care Reform

Monday, September 10, 2007
Mike Villines: No late deals on our health care
When it comes to health care: slow down, listen, and think.
State assembly GOP leader

If history can teach us anything, it's that cutting deals at the last minute and rushing half-baked deals through the Legislature at the 11th hour is a recipe for failure – especially when it involves something as important and complex as California's health care system.

Remember energy deregulation? At the time, lawmakers touted the sweeping legislation as a plan that would lower costs and improve service for all. A few years later, Californians were stuck paying billons of dollars for these empty promises, forced to endure rolling blackouts and record budget deficits, while paying higher rates for inferior service.

Unfortunately, history seems to be repeating itself this year with the end-of-session push to pass health care legislation. Press accounts have revealed that Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Democrats are preparing to cut a deal on a harmful plan that could increase your insurance rates by up to 40 percent, hurt businesses and jobs, and lead to higher taxes for all Californians. Worst of all, not only is this plan being put together out of the public eye, it will ultimately not provide more access to care.

Before the governor and Democrats ram through a government health care scheme without legislative scrutiny or public input, I think it's important that we all take a step back and think through the impact our actions will have on health care in our state for generations. If we proceed in passing this hastily crafted plan, we will be repeating the colossal mistakes of the past and make the current problems far worse. Does that make sense to you?

The experiences in other countries, like Canada, show that we could face a rationing of care while government bureaucrats decide what treatments you can receive. Patients could be forced to wait several months just to receive basic health services, such as a routine MRI. Seniors with serious illnesses could be denied life-saving treatments if they are determined to not be "cost-effective."

By imposing massive tax increases, including a jobs tax on every California business and a sales tax increase on all Californians, government health care will cause taxpayers to feel pain where it hurts most – their wallets.

Those who already have insurance will see their rates increase. One of California's major health insurance providers says this plan will force them to raise premiums on nearly all of the 600,000 individuals who buy coverage from them. Younger, healthier Californians could see their premiums rise as much as 50 percent! Again I ask, does this make sense to you?

There are also serious legal flaws in this plan. It may violate the federal ERISA law, which forbids states from forcing companies to provide specific health benefits to their workers or pay a jobs tax. A similar plan in Maryland was thrown out in court for violating ERISA, yet Democrats refuse to hold a hearing on the legality of this plan.

Not that long ago Gov. Schwarzenegger declared, "A tax increase would be the final nail in California's financial coffin." Assembly Republicans agree that raising taxes to pay for expanded government health care is the wrong approach.

It's time for all of us to take a deep breath and realize just what's at stake this year. A partisan vote that ignores the serious problems with their plan is not the way to reform health care. We don't need to rush through flawed legislation at the last minute just for the sake of headlines. Policy by press release is never a good idea. Lawmakers can and must take the time to do this right. There is a lot we can to together to provide more access and choice to quality care while reducing costs, without raising taxes or expanding the size of government.

Mike Villines, of Fresno, is the Republican Leader of the California State Assembly. He represents the 29th Assembly District in the State Legislature.

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Friday, August 31, 2007

Orange County Register Editorial on Universal Health Care

The following is a reprint of an August 31, 2007, editorial form the Orange County Register:

Friday, August 31, 2007
Today's editorial: Insuring everyone with others' money
Letting the government order coverage for everyone will only raise prices.
An Orange County Register Editorial

Californians shouldn't be fooled into thinking government can make health insurance more affordable or more available by mandating it or taxing it.

People intuitively know how absurd it would be for government to force them to buy food for everyone. The demand for food would soar if everyone knew whatever they wanted to eat would be paid for by someone else. No one can afford to feed that appetite. Why, then, do people have a difficult time seeing the absurdity of government forcing people to pay for everyone's health care?

Democrats in the state Legislature and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger want to force near-universal health care insurance onto Californians before the Legislature adjourns in mid-September. They would mandate it and force people to pay for it. Why would anyone think the effect would be any different than it would be for food?

Health care costs are rising, already pricing many people out of the market for insurance. Rising costs are partly due to expensive technological advances, and research and development. But the underlying cause is demand.

Think of demand as an expression of appetite, a desire that seeks to attain or possess. When people can get more at someone else's expense, their appetite increases. But when people must pay out of their own pocket, they curb their appetites and evaluate what they're paying for. They weigh what is to be gained against the cost. The government system is an invitation to overspend, or, worse, to have government decide what's necessary, rather than a patient, doctor or insurer.

Unfortunately, politicians are in the appetite-feeding business. They see people without health care insurance and offer to buy it for them – with someone else's money. The Democrat plan, Assembly Bill 8, would impose a 7.5 percent payroll tax on all employers. Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan would impose 2 percent tax on doctors and 4 percent taxes on hospitals and employers of 10 or more. Both plans merely shift costs to someone else. It's a prescription for wanting even more. While neither proposal precludes people from paying for procedures privately if they want them, they impose new costs, regardless of whether they are wanted.

In a way, insurance companies operate similarly, but on a voluntary basis. Everyone pays a premium, and from the proceeds people receive coverage for specified treatments. Ideally, people would keep costs low by buying only coverage they need. Young people less likely to be ill might buy less insurance. Others may opt for high deductibles to pay correspondingly lower premiums, insuring against catastrophes and paying smaller expenses out of pocket.

Government doesn't operate that way. To satisfy every appetite, government requires coverage that people may not need or want, rather than letting individuals make personal decisions. Insurance companies have pulled out of some states because of unprofitable, costly mandated coverage required by governments.

It's bad enough when government mandates the types and amounts of coverage that must be sold and purchased, driving up prices. It's worse when government forces employers to provide insurance or to pay into a fund for the government to provide it, as the current schemes in Sacramento would.

Rising health care costs are a problem. But never will everyone be able to afford every medical treatment or procedure. So, appetites must be curbed. Individuals can do that if they are allowed to exercise discipline in a private market. It will never happen if pandering politicians make arbitrary decisions to feed every appetite.

Government can make health care more affordable and accessible by getting out of the insurance business and by reducing mandates on those in the business. Unfortunately, the trend in Sacramento is going in the opposite direction.

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Monday, August 27, 2007

California Health Care Survey

A survey directed to California business owners can be found on the website of Orange County Assemblywoman Mimi Walters at California Health Care Survey

Please take the time to complete the survey, as all business owners will be affected by the health plans currently under consideration in the state of California.

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Let's Watch Wisconsin Suffer

Following is a recent column by syndicated columnist and host of ABC News "20/20" John Stossel.

Friday, August 10, 2007
John Stossel: Let's watch Wisconsin suffer
State's new universal health insurance can educate rest of us with its failure
Syndicated Columnist and Host of ABC News "20/20"

"On, Wisconsin ... run the ball clear down the field!"

It's time to amend the Wisconsin football fight song so we can cheer on the Badger State's politicians as they move toward health-care socialism.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page editors are upset that Wisconsin's state Senate passed "Healthy Wisconsin," which will give health insurance to every person in the state. Of course, the Journal editors are right in saying that the plan is "openly hostile to market incentives that contain costs" and that the "Cheesehead nation could expect to attract health care free-riders while losing productive workers who leave for less-taxing climes."

In addition, as the Journal put it, "Wow, is 'free' health care expensive. The plan would cost an estimated $15.2 billion, or $3 billion more than the state currently collects in all income, sales and corporate income taxes."

And, of course, down the road it will cost much more than that. Even the $15 billion is based on the usual Pollyannaish assumptions such as millions in savings "from putting more emphasis on primary care."

As usual, most of the new taxes will be imposed on employers. Progressives believe money taken from employers doesn't cost anything. Rich corporations will simply waste less on lavish perks and excess profits. But taxes on business are often paid by workers, stockholders and consumers. Businesses that can't pass the taxes on to someone else will close or move out of state.

But progressives are oblivious to this fact. They see Wisconsin becoming a fairyland of health happiness supervised by the 16-person "authority" that will oversee the plan. Socialism will work this time because the "right" people will be in charge.

Does it never occur to the progressives that the legislature's intrusion into private contracts is one reason health care and health insurance are expensive now? The average annual health insurance premium for a family in Wisconsin is $4,462 partly because Wisconsin imposes 29 mandates on health insurers: Every policy must cover chiropractors, dentists, genetic testing, etc. Think chiropractors are quacks? Too bad. You still must pay them to treat people in your state.

Want to buy insurance from another state, like nearby Michigan, where an average policy costs less? Too bad. It's against the law to buy across state lines. Your state's Big Brother knows best.

The Journal writes about a "last line of defense against" Healthy Wisconsin, but I say, let Wisconsin try it! Their suffering will be for the greater good.

As I interview people for an upcoming health care TV special, I'm struck by how many hate the current semi-free-market system America has now. I say "semi" because it's not a free market when about half the health care bill is funded by government. But it's still better than socialism. It allows for innovation like the creation of better drugs, joint replacements, artificial hearts, LASIK eye surgery, and who-knows-what-else that may reduce pain and extend my life.

Socialism will kill that, but people seem to like socialism, at least when it's sold as free stuff from politicians. Wisconsin's Capital Times reports that "two-thirds of Wisconsin residents support the Democratic plan – even when presented with opponents' arguments that it would be a 'job killer' that could lead to higher taxes."

That's why America needs "Healthy Wisconsin." The fall of the Soviet Union deprived us of the biggest example of how socialism works. We need laboratories of failure to demonstrate what socialism is like. All we have now is Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the U.S. Post Office and state motor-vehicle departments.

It's not enough. Wisconsin can show the other 49 states what "universal" coverage is like.

I feel bad for the people in Wisconsin. They already suffer from little job creation, and the Packers haven't been winning, but it's better to experiment with one state than all of America.

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Friday, August 3, 2007

Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Reform

With over 6.6 million Californians without health insurance, covering the uninsured is a top priority for our state. The Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Reform supports efforts to reform the healthcare system in a way that does not damage, jeopardize or increase costs for California consumers and families who already have coverage.

It is the coalition's position that as healthcare consumers, Californians simply can’t allow ill-considered reforms to damage the healthcare system. They support comprehensive reform that ensures healthcare:

Is affordable
Is accessible to all Californians
Provides choice and flexibility to consumers

For more information about the coalition and their position on healthcare reform, please visit Coalition for Responsible Healthcare Reform

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

Rudy Giuliani Unveils Health Plan

Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani recently unveiled a consumer oriented solution to the nation's health care woes that relies on providing individuals tax credits to purchase private insurance. Please go here for a summary of Giuliani's plan:

Rudy Giuliani's Health Plan

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Sunday, July 22, 2007

California Association of Health Underwriters Health Proposal

Following is a summary of the health plan proposed by the California Association of Health Underwriters from their website:

CAHU’s Healthy Solutions for California
Executive Summary
May 17, 2007

All Californians deserve a health care system that delivers both world-class care and financial security. They deserve a system that is accessible, affordable and fair. Californians deserve a system that boosts the state’s economy, attracts new businesses and strengthens existing enterprises. Californians also deserve a system that is realistic. We can only do so much as a single state; but what we can do, we should do.

The California Association of Health Underwriters (CAHU) is the state’s largest association for health insurance agents, brokers and other professionals. We occupy a unique place in the health care coverage system, working to connect Californians with their best possible coverage from health insurance providers. We see firsthand what’s working and what’s not. We educate consumers on their health care coverage choices, help them select the most appropriate plans for their specific needs and serve as their advocate if problems arise.

Requirements of Reform
As the Governor and State lawmakers move forward in efforts to reform California’s health care system, CAHU is putting forward its “Healthy Solutions” package of reforms and principles that we strongly believe should be used as guidelines for any and all proposed reform packages. Below are the core principles CAHU has identified in an effort to define the terms for a truly comprehensive health care reform effort.

 We believe any reform package must ensure that all Californians have basic health care coverage.
 We believe reform must bankrupt neither families nor the state.
 We believe reform must provide the state’s diverse population with equally diverse health care choices.
 We believe reform must promote ongoing and long-term innovation and experimentation that enable the state’s health care system to adapt over time to the evolving needs of its citizens.
 We believe reform must address and constrain skyrocketing medical care costs.
 We believe reform must provide consumers access to meaningful information and expert advice and counseling from licensed professionals.

The CAHU Healthy Solutions Plan:
Following the principles described above, CAHU has identified a number of specific elements of a comprehensive package of health care reforms, including:

1. Access for All
 Enroll the one million Californians who, while currently eligible for state programs such as MediCal and Healthy Families, fail to participate in them, reducing the state’s uninsured by nearly 15 percent
 Once 85 percent of those eligible to enroll in existing state programs have done so, as the state’s finances permit, these programs should be expanded to reach children up to 300 percent of the Federal Poverty Level and single adults up to 100 percent of the Federal Poverty Level
 Subsidies should be provided to Californians below 250 percent of the Federal Poverty Level enabling them to buy basic coverage in the private marketplace. As state finances permit, subsidies should be offered to individuals up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) on a sliding scale (e.g., 90 percent of the cost of basic coverage for those below 150 percent of the FPL to 10 percent for those between 351 and 400 percent of the FPL)
 All Californians, regardless of income, should be required to have at least basic health care coverage

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Sunday, July 8, 2007


Having recently watched the Michael Moore documentary, Sicko, I wanted to share some thoughts and opinions about the movie and the U.S. healthcare system in general. Overall, I felt that Moore did a really good job of bringing some major issues to the forefront, albeit in a sensationalistic portrayal. However, it is the job of a good documentary to assure that the viewer perceives and understands the importance of the issues being portrayed, and to this end, Moore's work is outstanding. He also injects humor into the equation and comes up with an end product which definitely accomplishes its purpose and entertains the viewer. However, the biggest failure of Sicko is the inability to provide a workable alternative to the current state of healthcare in this country, and Moore's examples of "a better way" leave much to the imagination and do not even come close to convincing one that the systems portrayed would actually work.

As a relative newcomer to the health insurance industry, I have personally observed many flaws in the current system such as a client who had coverage rescinded due to an issue in her medical record which was unknown to her at the time she completed an application, clients who had claims held up for 90 to 120 days while insurance companies investigated whether a claim was due to a pre-existing medical condition, and overcharges on services due to errors in the negotiated rates between a carrier and service provider. I also have observed human error in incorrect explanations of benefits being communicated to members and in the billing process. There is no question that much improvement needs to take place administratively within the private sector of healthcare.

In today's market, I feel that the most important issues are providing coverage for as many people as possible and making sure that people understand the coverage they possess. Many times one insurance company will decline or rate up a prospect while another will accept the prospect given the same information. The inconsistencies in the medical underwriting of policies are much too widespread as are the number of declines based on insignificant medical issues. Furthermore, the lack of uniform disclosure of the basic coverages provided by health plans is alarming. Many people are sold plans with information on important plan features omitted. Some health insurance carriers actually tell their sales people that it is a terminatable offense if they leave anything in writing with a client without taking an application. In all too many cases, the consumer doesn't know the correct questions to ask, and the broker or company in the quest to make the sale fails to cover key exclusions or deficiencies of the plan.

What this all adds up to is a healthcare system that needs a lot of work. However, in this writer's opinion, most of the entities proposing solutions including Mr. Moore, the politicians, and the insurance companies have their own agendas. In a perfect world, these groups would work together to improve and enhance the current system of healthcare. However, in reality, this quest becomes very political in nature with the various factions competing against each other.

I personally don't believe that a purely universal healthcare system is the answer, but as long as the major players in the industry are participants in our capitalistic, profit oriented society, there will be too many reasons to bypass the real issues at hand in the quest for the almighty dollar. I think all any of us can do is to stay on top of the issues and make our voices heard in support of what we believe in. For this, I have to thank Michael Moore for his efforts.

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Monday, July 2, 2007

Transforming Healthcare in America

Aetna is at the forefront of the national debate on health care in America. To help their constituents – brokers, plan sponsors and members – learn more about what Aetna is doing to help transform the health care system in our country, they recently created a new website called “Transforming Health Care In America.” The website contains key messages on the subject of health care reform as well as links to news and announcements of initiatives that demonstrate how Aetna is working to help improve health care access and the overall health care experience for all Americans. Please visit their site for more information.

Transforming Healthcare in America

John Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Friday, June 29, 2007

Low Cost Health Insurance

Policies and Procedures

I would like to share some of the policies, procedures, and ideals of our company with our visitors.

We are an independent health insurance brokerage with no allegiance to any one insurance company. Our only allegiance is to our clients.

Our objective is finding our clients the best health insurance coverage for the lowest monthly premium. This is accomplished through education and knowledge of risk assumption.

We believe in full and uniform disclosure by all insurance companies. In our opinion, this is one of the biggest flaws in the current system. There is no uniform disclosure legislation to force all insurers to reveal information in the same foremat to the consumer.

We do not believe in insurance companies incentivising brokers to sell their products. Our objective is to provide the best coverage, not win a free trip to Hawaii.

We believe in exhibiting the highest degree of integrity possible in our dealings with clients and insurance companies. Honesty and ethics should be an integral part of any broker's day to day activities.

Finally, we believe in an informational, no-pressure approach to procuring the best health insurance plans for our clients.

John F. Pack
Cindy Strickland
Low Cost Health Insurance

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Presidential Candidates' Health Plan Ideas

As the Presidential Candidates release details on their health plan proposals, we will try and keep our blog updated with information on their ideas. Please click below for information on Senator Barack Obama's ideas:

John F. Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Health Savings Accounts

New health savings accounts (HSA's) represent a viable option for those searching for low cost health insurance. A health savings account is a special tax-sheltered savings account for medical expenses and is similar to an IRA in concept. Instead of purchasing high-priced health insurance with low co-pays, you buy low cost health insurance (with a high deductible) for the "big bills" and deposit the difference in the HSA to cover the "small bills." Money deposited into health savings accounts is 100% tax deductible and can be easily accessed by check or debit card to pay medical bills tax-free including expenses not covered by insurance like dental and vision. Monies not used for medical expenses remain the property of the individual account holder, not the insurance company. The benefits of health savings accounts are numerous and include the following:

  • Lower monthly health insurance premiums
  • More stability in premiums
  • Immediate tax savings
  • Long-term growth potential
  • Tax-free withdrawals to pay medical expenses
  • Tax-free withdrawals to pay for long-term care insurance or COBRA premiums
  • Freedom to choose your own medical providers
  • More control over your own healthcare decisions

If you are looking for low cost health insurance and have a desire not to pay high health insurance premiums while reducing federal income taxes, you should definitely look into health savings accounts. All major carriers including Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Health Net, Nationwide, and United/PacifiCare offer excellent HSA compatible plans. Health savings accounts are the wave of the future! You owe it to yourself to check them out!

John F. Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Is It Time for Uniform Disclosure Legislation in Health Insurance?

Ethics in business is a prevailing issue in today’s society. All categories of business contain many ethical and honest companies and personnel, however there is always a segment of those who are either less ethical or simply fail to disclose all the facts of a transaction. The health insurance industry is a business category where lack of disclosure could lead to significant monetary cost for today’s consumer.

Aside from the issue of ethics, there is the issue of how information is presented to the public by health insurance carriers. Today, there is no disclosure legislation in place to assure that everyone is presenting features of plans in a uniform manner. In this writer’s opinion, there are five critical elements to any health insurance plan:

· Major medical deductible
· Coinsurance percentage
· Coinsurance or out of pocket maximum
· Doctor visit co-pay
· Rx benefits

An example of lack of uniform disclosure is the manner in which the coinsurance maximum is presented to a prospective buyer. This is an important term in that it signifies when a health plan member has paid out the limit of his liability, usually based on a calendar year, thus reaching a point where the insurance carrier pays all remaining covered expenses at 100%. Certain carriers include the deductible amount in the coinsurance maximum, while others do not, thus leading to consumer confusion.

Another example is that a few health carriers sell plans that contain deductibles by incident rather than by calendar year, which means that if an insured member is hospitalized more than once in a calendar year for different issues, he or she has to satisfy the deductible on each occurrence. This feature is hardly ever communicated to the consumer and leads to confusion and consternation when claims are not paid.

Many ethical insurance brokers’ major frustration with the industry is related to cases in which brokers or carrier representatives “misrepresent” coverage benefits by omission. If a uniform disclosure act was passed and simply covered the basics, the consumer would be able to make a more intelligent purchasing decision, and those companies and brokers who are only interested in the sale would have to exert much more caution in how they present health plans. Uniform disclosure puts everyone on a more level playing field and actually would greatly assist the many conscientious agents whose primary objective is helping clients obtain the best health insurance coverage for their personal needs and budget.

John F. Pack
Low Cost Health Insurance