A prominent divorce financial strategist has revealed to Forbes
Magazine some interesting trends taking place in divorces over the last
decade. Some of the most notable divorce trends are:
1. As marriage rates decrease, divorce rates decrease proportionately.
2. Women are usually the ones who initiate a divorce.
3. “Grey” divorces, a name for divorces later in life, are on the rise.
To read about the trends in divorce, and to view a fascinating info-graphic about divorce, please click on the following link:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2013/06/20/not-your-mothers-divorce-three-21st-century-trends/
Are you a resident of Southern Rhode Island and considering divorce? The experienced lawyers at Law Office of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD.
and the mediators at Partners In Mediation offer you two options in
order to proceed with your divorce or other family disputes and
problems. Learn about these options and which would work best for you by
calling or contacting Jeremy Howe for a free comprehensive telephone
consultation.
Attorney Howe and his team of family court lawyers have
been providing quality divorce and family representation in all Family
Courts in Rhode Island for nearly four decades. He and his co-mediator
have mediated hundreds of divorce, family law and elder law cases in
North Kingstown, South Kingstown, Cranston, Warwick and Westerly, Rhode
Island and the surrounding communities.
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are Elder Law Attorneys in Newport, Rhode Island who specialize in Divorce, Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.counselfirst.com
Jeremy Howe, Kristy Garside and Hilary Carlson are Newport RI Family Law and Elder Law attorneys who maintain an Elder Law E-Newsletter, Elder Law News. Subscription inquiries can be directed to JoanHowe@counselfirst.com.
Showing posts with label Newport RI Elder Law Attorney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Newport RI Elder Law Attorney. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
Attorney Kristy Garside Receives The Rhode Island Bar Association’s Pro Bono Publico Award
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FAMILY LAW AND ELDER LAW ATTORNEY, KRISTY GARSIDE, RECEIVES PRESTIGIOUS AWARD FOR PRO BONO ACCOMPLISHMENTS
June 10, 2013, Newport, RI: Kristy
Garside, a family law and elder law attorney with The Law Offices of Jeremy W.
Howe, Ltd., has been awarded the prestigious Rhode Island Bar Association’s
2013 Pro Bono Publico Award for her outstanding efforts in providing equal
access to justice to the poor through the Volunteer Lawyer Program. The Rhode Island Bar Association’s Pro Bono Publico
Awards program seeks to identify and honor individual lawyers who have enhanced
the human dignity of others by improving or delivering volunteer legal services
to the poor and disadvantaged.
Kristy Garside
has been advocating on behalf of impoverished Rhode Islanders since law school,
when she received her J.D., from Roger Williams University School of Law in
2004. She has been an active participant
in the Rhode Island Bar Association’s Volunteer Lawyer program for many
years. Garside offers her family law and
elder law knowledge and expertise to the volunteer program, which provides legal
assistance to low-income clients who are financially unable to obtain legal
representation. She is among over 1000
private attorneys in the State of Rhode Island who volunteer their time for
this program.
Newport Attorney Jeremy Howe,
of The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, Ltd., offered his congratulations to Garside,
saying, “We are
very proud of Kristy. Her legal work is
of the highest quality, even when she isn't being paid. Kristy truly cares
about the people she represents."
Garside will accept her Pro Bono Publico Award on June 13, 2013 at the
Rhode Island Bar Association’s Annual Meeting Dinner.
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are Elder Law Attorneys in Newport, Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.counselfirst.com
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
A Medicare Trap
A Medicare Trap
My associate attorney Kristy Garside and I presented
material on Social Security, dividing pensions, Social Security Disability,
Medicaid and Medicare at a Rhode Island Bar Association seminar last week. The seminar
was delivered to about 50 attorneys and was titled “When Your Older Clients
Divorce.” The Medicare portion of our presentation utilized written material by
Robin G. Smith of Robin G. Smith Consulting, an elder-advice professional. We
emphasized a “Medicare Trap” from her material.
Medicare Part B covers doctor visits, lab tests, diagnostic
imaging, and outpatient procedures, and can be thought of simply as a classic
80/20 health insurance plan. Neither Part A or part B covers prescription
drugs. Having BOTH Parts A and B is necessary to get either Supplemental
insurance (Medigap), or to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan (Part C). The
problem “trap” is regarding those over 65 who are still working and covered by
their employers insurance (and their spouses): The worker and spouse can elect
to decline Part B (thus avoiding paying the premium) without incurring a late
sign-up penalty. However, if the employee retires or otherwise loses employer
coverage, he and his over 65 year old spouse MUST sign up for Medicare Part B
within 63 days of leaving the job, even if the employer had offered COBRA
benefits. Failure to do so will incur a Medicare penalty for late sign-up that
is both financially onerous and permanent. Medicare counts the time from the
day the employee left the job, and does not take COBRA payments into account at
all. In addition, the spouse might not be able to sign up at all until long
after the date the coverage ended. When a couple divorces, the divorce settlement
often requires coverage until the non- working ex-spouse reaches age 65. The
ex- spouse must sign up for Part B to avoid a Medicare penalty. If the
divorcing parties are over 65, and have been covered by the other’s employer’s
insurance, the spouse must sign up for Part B upon the divorce.
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in wills and trusts, estate planning, guardianship, probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce lawyers, attorneys, mediators, and arbitrators providing services for family law issues such as divorce, child custody and visitation, support, and military family law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Surviving Spouse May Be Responsible for Nursing Home Bills
Mass. Court Rules Wife Is Responsible For Husband's Nursing Home Care
Spouses need to be very careful or they could end up legally responsible for the cost of their husband’s of wife's nursing home care, as a recent Massachusetts court decision demonstrates.
When Milfranciu Jode entered a nursing home, his wife applied for Medicaid on his behalf. Mr. Jode was rejected three times due to the failure to provide backup documentation, and he died leaving the nursing home unpaid.
After Mr. Jode's death, the nursing home sued Mrs. Jode, arguing that she was legally responsible for the cost of her husband's care under something called the "doctrine of necessaries." This means that a spouse is responsible for debts incurred by the other spouse for "necessaries." The law doesn't define what constitutes a "necessary," but in the Jode case the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that the definition of necessaries included the care provided by the nursing home. Emerson Village, LLC. v. Jode (Mass. Sup. Ct., Middlesex, No. 12-CV-1736-F, Dec. 15, 2012)
Many other states have similar laws to the one in Massachusetts making one spouse responsible for the care of the other spouse. If your spouse is in a nursing home, contact your elder law attorney right away to find out the best course of action to prevent any surprises when it comes to the bill.
Read more HERE
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in wills and trusts, estate planning, guardianship, probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for family law issues such as divorce, child custody and visitation, support, and military family law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Planning For Your Retirement
Four Retirement Planning Mistakes to Avoid
by Donna FuscaldoEveryone knows you have to save for retirement, but creating and following a proper plan is easier said than done. Whether it’s establishing a savings plan too late or collecting Social Security too early, mistakes abound when it comes to adequately funding our nest eggs.
“The biggest mistake is retiring without any real plan or investment strategy,” says Nigel Green, the chief executive of the deVere Group, a financial advisory firm. “Most aspects of life require planning in order to maximise their chances of success, and retirement is no different.”
Here’s a look at four common mistakes to avoid when planning for your retirement.
Mistake No. 1: Taking Social Security Too Early
Current regulations dictate that you can not receive full Social Security benefits until age of 66 and 2 months for those born after 1955. But just because you are eligible, doesn’t mean it makes financial sense to claim benefits.
Too often people take their benefits too early because they are worried the program won’t be adequately funded in the future or they feel they are better investing the monthly payment, according to Kevin Luss, founder and president of the Luss Group.
“The old paradigm that you retire at 59 is getting to be outdated,” says Luss. “People are living so long that if you retire at 65 you’ll have to live in retirement for 25 years or more.” The longer you wait to collect Social Security, the greater the monthly check will you start collecting. “There’s an exponential increase when you wait even one or two years longer.”
Mistake No. 2: Not Saving Enough
The general guideline when it comes to funding retirement is you will need 80% of your preretirement income to maintain your current lifestyle after work.
A recent surveyed conducted by the deVere Group found that even retirees able to create a $1 million nest egg are concerned they may not be able to afford their lifestyle in retirement.
“Despite their wealth, the vast number of respondents told us that their money does not go as far as they had expected due to constantly increasing prices,” says Green. “Our research shows that if you want to receive a pension of $33,000 a year, this currently requires pension savings of $485,000. Naturally, if you want a higher annual retirement income the required savings also increases proportionately.”
Read more HERE
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in wills and trusts, estate planning, guardianship, probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for family law issues such as divorce, child custody and visitation, support, and military family law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Medicaid Expansion: What If a State Opts Out?
Affordable Care Act News (ObamaCare)
One of the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the new health reform law, gives money to states to expand Medicaid to adults and families with low incomes – a total of about 17 million additional people.However, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government cannot effectively coerce states into accepting the Medicaid expansion by withdrawing all a state’s Medicaid funds if it refuses. Although elderly and disabled individuals who currently receive Medicaid aren't affected by the Court's ruling, it could leave millions of others without any options for health coverage -- and possibly cost lives.
The Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid eligibility starting in 2014 to individuals and families with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, which is $14,856 for an individual in 2012. (Most states currently limit Medicaid to certain categories of people at or below the poverty line, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, people with disabilities and elderly needing long-term care.) The federal government will pay the complete cost for the Medicaid expansion for three years for newly eligible beneficiaries, and 90 percent of a state’s costs thereafter.
Read more HERE
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in wills and trusts, estate planning, guardianship, probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for family law issues such as divorce, child custody and visitation, support, and military family law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Labels:
health care,
Medicaid,
Newport RI Elder Law Attorney
Thursday, June 30, 2011
The A B Cs of Joint Bank Accounts
Joint Bank Accounts
One might think that the general topic of “bank account ownership” is easy to understand and that forms of bank account ownership are understood by the general public and by bankers. But mistakes are made all the time. To begin with, some accounts were set up by bankers and customers decades ago. The accounts were written out by hand. Some of them listed two names only, some of them listed two names as “Joint Tenants” and others listed two names as “Joint Tenants with right of survivorship.”The above designations can cause problems when an owner dies or loses capacity.
It bears repeating that if you have a will, the will should address joint accounts. The usual clauses are a “true joint account clause” or an “account of convenience clause.” The former makes clear that your joint accounts were intended to go to the surviving joint tenant. The latter states that your joint accounts were intended as a convenience with the intention that the funds be added to your estate.
A person’s wishes can be thwarted during or after death. In a recent case the bank account was designated as “Joint”. The bank record did not say “with right of survivorship.” The daughter wanted to retain the funds. Her siblings challenged her. The Supreme Court agreed with her siblings. The decedent may have intended that her daughter receive the funds but she did not write “with right of survivorship.”
The moral of the story is: Check every account and be sure that your intention regarding ownership has been properly designated. This problem comes up regularly and it causes family feuds more often than you would think.
In a facetiously written 1998 Rhode Island case it was noted that there are two ways to start a civil action. To paraphrase: The first is to follow the statutory procedure for starting a case and the second was “by opening a joint bank account with right of survivorship. “
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Friday, December 10, 2010
RI Estate Lawyer Kindness Matters
Newport RI Probate client shares thanks with Law Office of Jeremy Howe and Associates for care during difficult time:
Dear Hilary & Jeremy,
Words cannot express my heartfelt appreciation for the kindness you’ve shown me. Making things go perfectly stress-free was a true blessing for me and I will always remember your thoughtfulness.
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Health Care Reform "Death by a Thousand Cuts"
Newport Elder Law Attorney Jeremy Howe found the following article regarding the repeal of Obama's Health Care Plan.
The article: “Republicans to Take On U.S. Health Law’s Taxes, Rules” from Bloomberg Businessweek (November 3rd) was reported today, November 4th, in Lawnewswatch.com. The article states that rather than repeal the health-care overhaul, the Republican strategy will resemble “death by a thousand cuts.”
The full article follows below.
By Laura Litvan and Drew Armstrong
Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Congressional Republicans pledged to repeal the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed into law in March. Once they consolidate power, the strategy will more likely resemble death by a thousand cuts.
House and Senate Republicans already have written at least 30 bills to roll back provisions in the law. The success of some efforts would mean WellPoint Inc. and competing health insurers may escape regulations to set their patient-care spending, while Boston Scientific Corp. and other medical-device makers dodge $20 billion in tax increases in the next decade.
With networks projecting that Republicans have won the seats needed for control of the House, the party also plans to target budgets of agencies implementing the health-care law.
“You can literally open the bill and point your finger to a page and say, ‘Here’s something we should go after,’” said Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas, a Republican on the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. “It’s all bad.”
The party’s drive will force Democrats to vote on whether to defend unpopular parts of the law, said Tom Scully, the former chief of the Medicare program under President George W. Bush. Democratic control of the Senate and Obama’s veto pen assures there won’t be an outright repeal of the law or big changes, he said.
Bloomberg’s Managed Health Services stock index slid less than 1 percent at 4 p.m. New York time as WellPoint gained 30 cents, or less than 1 percent, to $56.05 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Pharmaceutical Index gained 54 cents, or less than 1 percent. The S&P Biotechnology Index lost $4.77, or less than 1 percent.
“This outcome seems to be positive for the group in general,” Les Funtleyder, a health-care portfolio manager for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York, said in a note to clients. Health insurers have the most to gain, while biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are less likely to see positive effects from the political contests, he said.
Republicans gained at least 60 House seats yesterday across the U.S. They picked up six in the Senate, winning in Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Wisconsin. They won’t get the 10-seat gain needed to control the Senate as races in Alaska and Washington are yet to be decided, and the Denver Post projected Democrats will hold the seat in Colorado.
“Very little will happen in the next two years, but it will be a big political battle,” said Scully, senior counsel at the law office of Alston and Bird LLP of Washington.
Aetna Inc. Chief Executive Officer Ron Williams said today that the Hartford, Connecticut-based company “would welcome a renewed willingness to discuss market-based solutions” to improving the health-care system and controlling medical costs, without specifically commenting on the election.
Most of the action may be in the courts, where 21 states are challenging the law’s requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. Successful challenges could accomplish what Republican lawmakers can’t, by eliminating an important component of the overhaul.
If congressional Republicans strike some requirements of the law, health-care groups may pressure Congress to make other changes and set off a domino effect, said John Fortier, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “It’s not that the entire thing unravels if one piece fails, but the rationale for some of the things and the reason for some of the deals fails and potentially, some of the support.”
Efforts to change the law will originate in the House, where Republicans will decide which bills go to the floor and can hold oversight hearings on how the law is evolving. Democrats still control the Senate’s agenda. It will take a two- thirds majority of both chambers to override any Obama veto.
Congressional Republicans can “embarrass” Democrats with votes on the health overhaul, including during debate over a fiscal 2012 budget plan early in the next session, said Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Hatch in January will become top Republican on the Finance Committee.
House Republican leaders will begin with a January vote to repeal and replace it with a scaled-back measure patterned after legislation by Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, said John Murray, a spokesman for House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.
The approach by Boehner -- who is expected to become speaker -- would expand coverage to 3 million Americans by 2019 without requiring Americans to have insurance. It would let businesses pool resources to buy coverage and allow insurance purchases across state lines. Boehner’s proposal would leave about 52 million people without insurance, meaning the proportion of Americans with coverage would remain unchanged in 2019 at 83 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The health law would expand coverage to a projected 32 million Americans who currently lack insurance, largely through an expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program and new online health-purchasing exchanges. The overhaul is projected to cost $938 billion over 10 years while resulting in a reduction in the annual budget deficit by slowing the growth in spending on health care, according to CBO.
Its more contentious elements include a first-ever mandate that most Americans obtain health coverage -- the provision being challenged in court, largely by Republican state attorneys general -- and new taxes on the wealthy and on high-end insurance plans.
Health insurers say the mandate requiring all Americans to have coverage is a necessity because otherwise people will only buy insurance when they get sick. The industry says removing the mandate would jeopardize consumer protections in the law, such as a requirement that insurers accept people with preexisting conditions.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington trade group, declined to discuss how a Republican victory would affect the mandate.
Republicans don’t necessarily oppose regulations on excluding people with pre-existing conditions, or other protections that have won support in polls. Their push to undo the individual mandate may make it harder to realize these rules, by burdening insurers with the new requirements without bringing in healthy new customers.
In the event Boehner’s proposal gets stopped in the Senate, Republicans will embark on an approach they call “delay and dismantle” that targets individual provisions in the law, said Murray. Some of the proposals may result in lower payments to health-care providers and states.
Republicans said they want to go after a requirement in the law mandating that businesses of all sizes report to the IRS any expenditures exceeding $600. The Senate on Sept. 14 narrowly failed to repeal the provision after seven Democratic senators joined all of the chamber’s Republicans.
Burgess, a doctor first elected to Congress in 2002, has legislation requiring congressional and executive branch aides to get their health coverage from the insurance exchanges.
Representative Brian Bilbray of California wants to repeal $20 billion in taxes in a decade on medical device makers including Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc. and Boston Scientific.
Representative Charles Boustany, a Louisiana Republican, has a bill that would force Congress to reconsider the “CLASS Act,” a long-term disability insurance program, and end it should it require more funding than it generates from premiums.
Other legislation would deny agencies funds they need to implement the law. Bills introduced by Fred Upton, the Michigan representative who may head the Energy and Commerce Committee next year, and Virginia’s J. Randy Forbes would bar the Internal Revenue Service from hiring workers to review incomes that would help determine which Americans qualify for subsidies.
Congress should revoke a rule requiring insurers to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they take in on patient care, Boustany and Burgess say. The measure will force some insurers to pull out of markets where they don’t meet the threshold, insurers and Republican lawmakers say.
“That will potentially be very disruptive to insurance coverage,” Boustany said.
Some Senate Democrats will apply pressure on their leaders for changes, Hatch predicted. He’s seeking bipartisan support for legislation that would scrap the individual mandate and a requirement that most employers provide coverage to workers.
“We’ve got to have two, three, four, five Democrats who will work with us on this bill, because they’ve been getting killed at home,” Hatch said in an interview.
The Republican strategy may negatively affect segments of the health-care industry. The expansion of coverage to 32 million newly insured people may deliver more than $500 billion in added revenue for insurers, hospitals and other providers from 2014 to 2019, according to CBO projections.
--With assistance from Matt Barry, Chris Flavelle, Lisa Lerer and Catherine Dodge in Washington. Editors: Adriel Bettelheim, Steve Walsh
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net; Drew Armstrong in Washington at darmstrong17@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net Adriel Bettelheim at abettelheim@bloomberg.net
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-03/republicans-to-take-on-u-s-health-law-s-taxes-rules.html
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
The article: “Republicans to Take On U.S. Health Law’s Taxes, Rules” from Bloomberg Businessweek (November 3rd) was reported today, November 4th, in Lawnewswatch.com. The article states that rather than repeal the health-care overhaul, the Republican strategy will resemble “death by a thousand cuts.”
The full article follows below.
Republicans to Take On U.S. Health Law’s Taxes, Rules
November 03, 2010By Laura Litvan and Drew Armstrong
Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Congressional Republicans pledged to repeal the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed into law in March. Once they consolidate power, the strategy will more likely resemble death by a thousand cuts.
House and Senate Republicans already have written at least 30 bills to roll back provisions in the law. The success of some efforts would mean WellPoint Inc. and competing health insurers may escape regulations to set their patient-care spending, while Boston Scientific Corp. and other medical-device makers dodge $20 billion in tax increases in the next decade.
With networks projecting that Republicans have won the seats needed for control of the House, the party also plans to target budgets of agencies implementing the health-care law.
“You can literally open the bill and point your finger to a page and say, ‘Here’s something we should go after,’” said Representative Michael C. Burgess of Texas, a Republican on the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee. “It’s all bad.”
The party’s drive will force Democrats to vote on whether to defend unpopular parts of the law, said Tom Scully, the former chief of the Medicare program under President George W. Bush. Democratic control of the Senate and Obama’s veto pen assures there won’t be an outright repeal of the law or big changes, he said.
Democrat Losses
Bloomberg’s Managed Health Services stock index slid less than 1 percent at 4 p.m. New York time as WellPoint gained 30 cents, or less than 1 percent, to $56.05 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Pharmaceutical Index gained 54 cents, or less than 1 percent. The S&P Biotechnology Index lost $4.77, or less than 1 percent.
“This outcome seems to be positive for the group in general,” Les Funtleyder, a health-care portfolio manager for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York, said in a note to clients. Health insurers have the most to gain, while biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies are less likely to see positive effects from the political contests, he said.
Republicans gained at least 60 House seats yesterday across the U.S. They picked up six in the Senate, winning in Illinois, Indiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Wisconsin. They won’t get the 10-seat gain needed to control the Senate as races in Alaska and Washington are yet to be decided, and the Denver Post projected Democrats will hold the seat in Colorado.
‘Political Battle’
“Very little will happen in the next two years, but it will be a big political battle,” said Scully, senior counsel at the law office of Alston and Bird LLP of Washington.
Aetna Inc. Chief Executive Officer Ron Williams said today that the Hartford, Connecticut-based company “would welcome a renewed willingness to discuss market-based solutions” to improving the health-care system and controlling medical costs, without specifically commenting on the election.
Most of the action may be in the courts, where 21 states are challenging the law’s requirement that all Americans buy health insurance. Successful challenges could accomplish what Republican lawmakers can’t, by eliminating an important component of the overhaul.
If congressional Republicans strike some requirements of the law, health-care groups may pressure Congress to make other changes and set off a domino effect, said John Fortier, a congressional scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “It’s not that the entire thing unravels if one piece fails, but the rationale for some of the things and the reason for some of the deals fails and potentially, some of the support.”
Changes From House
Efforts to change the law will originate in the House, where Republicans will decide which bills go to the floor and can hold oversight hearings on how the law is evolving. Democrats still control the Senate’s agenda. It will take a two- thirds majority of both chambers to override any Obama veto.
Congressional Republicans can “embarrass” Democrats with votes on the health overhaul, including during debate over a fiscal 2012 budget plan early in the next session, said Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Hatch in January will become top Republican on the Finance Committee.
House Republican leaders will begin with a January vote to repeal and replace it with a scaled-back measure patterned after legislation by Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, said John Murray, a spokesman for House Republican Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia.
Boehner’s Alternative
The approach by Boehner -- who is expected to become speaker -- would expand coverage to 3 million Americans by 2019 without requiring Americans to have insurance. It would let businesses pool resources to buy coverage and allow insurance purchases across state lines. Boehner’s proposal would leave about 52 million people without insurance, meaning the proportion of Americans with coverage would remain unchanged in 2019 at 83 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The health law would expand coverage to a projected 32 million Americans who currently lack insurance, largely through an expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program and new online health-purchasing exchanges. The overhaul is projected to cost $938 billion over 10 years while resulting in a reduction in the annual budget deficit by slowing the growth in spending on health care, according to CBO.
Its more contentious elements include a first-ever mandate that most Americans obtain health coverage -- the provision being challenged in court, largely by Republican state attorneys general -- and new taxes on the wealthy and on high-end insurance plans.
Coverage Mandate
Health insurers say the mandate requiring all Americans to have coverage is a necessity because otherwise people will only buy insurance when they get sick. The industry says removing the mandate would jeopardize consumer protections in the law, such as a requirement that insurers accept people with preexisting conditions.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington trade group, declined to discuss how a Republican victory would affect the mandate.
Republicans don’t necessarily oppose regulations on excluding people with pre-existing conditions, or other protections that have won support in polls. Their push to undo the individual mandate may make it harder to realize these rules, by burdening insurers with the new requirements without bringing in healthy new customers.
‘Delay and Dismantle’
In the event Boehner’s proposal gets stopped in the Senate, Republicans will embark on an approach they call “delay and dismantle” that targets individual provisions in the law, said Murray. Some of the proposals may result in lower payments to health-care providers and states.
Republicans said they want to go after a requirement in the law mandating that businesses of all sizes report to the IRS any expenditures exceeding $600. The Senate on Sept. 14 narrowly failed to repeal the provision after seven Democratic senators joined all of the chamber’s Republicans.
Burgess, a doctor first elected to Congress in 2002, has legislation requiring congressional and executive branch aides to get their health coverage from the insurance exchanges.
Representative Brian Bilbray of California wants to repeal $20 billion in taxes in a decade on medical device makers including Minneapolis, Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc. and Boston Scientific.
Medical Devices
Representative Charles Boustany, a Louisiana Republican, has a bill that would force Congress to reconsider the “CLASS Act,” a long-term disability insurance program, and end it should it require more funding than it generates from premiums.
Other legislation would deny agencies funds they need to implement the law. Bills introduced by Fred Upton, the Michigan representative who may head the Energy and Commerce Committee next year, and Virginia’s J. Randy Forbes would bar the Internal Revenue Service from hiring workers to review incomes that would help determine which Americans qualify for subsidies.
Congress should revoke a rule requiring insurers to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they take in on patient care, Boustany and Burgess say. The measure will force some insurers to pull out of markets where they don’t meet the threshold, insurers and Republican lawmakers say.
“That will potentially be very disruptive to insurance coverage,” Boustany said.
Bipartisan Support
Some Senate Democrats will apply pressure on their leaders for changes, Hatch predicted. He’s seeking bipartisan support for legislation that would scrap the individual mandate and a requirement that most employers provide coverage to workers.
“We’ve got to have two, three, four, five Democrats who will work with us on this bill, because they’ve been getting killed at home,” Hatch said in an interview.
The Republican strategy may negatively affect segments of the health-care industry. The expansion of coverage to 32 million newly insured people may deliver more than $500 billion in added revenue for insurers, hospitals and other providers from 2014 to 2019, according to CBO projections.
--With assistance from Matt Barry, Chris Flavelle, Lisa Lerer and Catherine Dodge in Washington. Editors: Adriel Bettelheim, Steve Walsh
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net; Drew Armstrong in Washington at darmstrong17@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Mark Silva at msilva34@bloomberg.net Adriel Bettelheim at abettelheim@bloomberg.net
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-03/republicans-to-take-on-u-s-health-law-s-taxes-rules.html
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Newport RI Elder Law Attorneys and Social Security Online
APPLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY ONLINE!
[disclaimer: We forward this monthly elderlaw newsletter each month to educate and inform our clients and friends. The fact that we have delivered it does not substitute for legal advice since most elderlaw advice is case-specific. We also do not agree with all of the information and opinions contained in the newsletter. For example, we found that a recent article describing assisted living facilities and family use of such facilities did not conform with our experience in Rhode Island.]
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Elder Care Attorney in Newport RI and Medicaid Estate Planning
PAY A CHILD FOR MY CARE! ARE YOU DAFT?
In our elder-law practice we see that families are struggling to provide care for a parent or parents who are still at home. In many cases they are avoiding cost by providing the care themselves. While it is hard for the children to charge their parents for this care and just as difficult for the parents to turn over a substantial portion of their life savings to the children, it may be a wise family decision for Medicaid planning purposes.
The current Medicaid “look-back” period is five years and there are rumblings that the new administration might change it again to seven years. Family gifts are “penalized” if they occur within the look-back period. The penalty is a denial for Medicaid qualification which program pays for long-term care for the parent. There are no penalties if the transferred assets are part of a contract, or family Care Agreement, providing for specific services to the parents.
There are “pros” and “cons” to such agreements but they should be part of the Medicaid-planning discussion. Other family members are normally involved and at times mediation is useful. Kristy, Hilary and I are ready to assist you with these and many other difficult decisions.
Jeremy Howe
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Elder Law Mediation and Newport RI Estate Planning Attorney
Elder-law Mediation. When is is Useful?
As a mediator, I am often called into family disputes. Whether the disputes are between parents and children, between siblings or between the family and an agency, the solutions often require a full knowledge of estate planning, probate law and practice, Medicaid and Medicare law, Veteran’s benefits, estate and income tax law and a full knowledge of community resources. Without this knowledge, the solution reached in mediation may not be the best solution. Mediation with an elder-lawyer is the best method of resolving such disputes since the traditional forums for resolving these disputes (Probate Court or the Superior Court) are very expensive, slow and frustrating.
If you, your family or a client or friend are involved in such disputes, please call us at The Law Office of Jeremy W. Howe, Ltd., to discuss how mediation can work for you.
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Newport RI Elder Law Attorneys and RI Foundation
THE RHODE ISLAND FOUNDATION. WHAT CAN IT DO FOR YOU?
As a family planner, I try to stay on top of any and all resources which might assist my clients in meeting their goals. I recently met with a representative of the Rhode Island Foundation which is a non-profit foundation. The stated objective of the foundation is “to sustain and strengthen the quality of life for all Rhode Islanders” which of course is a noble goal. When the representative called, my first reaction was: “My clients are not rich so what can this foundation do for my clients?” I thought that the primary purpose of the foundation was to provide annual grants to Rhode Island entities from the foundation’s endowment. At our meeting I quickly learned that I knew little about the work of the foundation and that it could be useful for many of my clients.
Here is a short summary of some benefits of involving the foundation in your planning:
1. Cost-free consultations, information and resources regarding charitable planning and giving. (Not legal or tax advice but assisting that advice by your attorney)
2. Accepting and managing endowments for any amount in excess of $10,000
3. Receiving gifts in any amount to add to one of their 800+ funds
4. Reasonable costs (compared to other managing entities)
5. Assisting donors in making very specific donations, gifts or bequests, following through with the donor’s desires and supporting the gift
6. Supporting a “donor-advised fund” where you take an active role in selecting grantees each year (which can also be controlled by your children in the future)
7. Providing income to you or to another for your lifetime through an annuity or a charitable trust
The donor can chose the charity and can be very specific regarding the use of funds by the designated charity. You can honor or memorialize someone forever. The foundation can help you find the right charity to meet your goals. For example, you could establish a scholarship fund in someone’s name. The charity can be in another state as well as in Rhode Island.
For local clients, The Newport County Fund is a permanent endowment of the Foundation and you can direct the use of your endowment to the needs of Newport County. The Maher Center could be designated as a beneficiary, for example.
LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF CHARITABLE GIVING.
Jeremy, Kristy & Hilary
------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Jeremy W. Howe, LTD. are ElderLaw attorneys in Rhode Island who specialize in Wills and Trusts, Estate Planning, Guardianship, Probate, and Veterans Aid and Attendance Benefits.
They also are Newport Rhode Island Divorce Lawyers, Attorneys, Mediators, and Arbitrators providing services for Family Law issues such as Divorce, Child Custody and Visitation, Support, and Military Family Law.
Call them today at 401-841-5700 or visit them on the web at http://www.CounselFirst.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)