In an absolutley stunning move, the National Association of REALTORS® (or Realtors as some of it’s members spell it), took a startling position in the landmark health care legislation passed yesterday.
NAR in it’s release on it’s website today (CLICK HERE) states that 28% of agents who responded to a survey did not have health insurance.
Yes, this is the same NAR that for years tried to ask Congress to please give independent contractors health insurance. Wow, what an under-reaction to a membership that averages $36,000 a year in income (by their own calculations).
Did they weigh their membership against their lobbying efforts? Was the question asked, how do we balance the membership’s real needs versus pissing off the Congresspeople that they think they need? Definition of quagmire.
OK, I know. Everyone is ready for me to keep spewing pro-health care sentiment. No, I am not going to gloat about this legislative victory, I am too busy trying to figure out how to get HVCC and the new GFE repealed in Senator Dodd’s finance reform bill!
Ken Montville
March 22, 2010 at 9:29 pm
NAR is a lobbying organization, first and foremost. As such, I guess it needs to pick its battles. Nevertheless, it would have been nice to see NAR at the forefront of some type of health care reform. After all, they represent over a million independent contractors.
Benn Rosales
March 22, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Fred, I’ve put on my devils advocate hat here and am wondering if there is really a complaint here, or a disappointment that NAR did not fight the legislation all together creating a whole new fight? NAR has been absolutely clear on its position on healthcare, we even covered it here on AG where it lists NARs hope for a bill that works. I don’t think as of this week there was a one side or another, there was simple quid pro quo to get a bill done leaving NAR to work both sides. I think the quote from the press release that drives this home is here:
Erion Shehaj
March 22, 2010 at 10:24 pm
If the NAR was ever going to get a pass from picking a side in a contentious debate, this one had to be it. Way too polarized!
Jeremy Isaac
March 22, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Welcome to AgentLiberal, folks. If NAR had come out in support of THIS health care “reform” they would have had a revolution on their hands…
Erion Shehaj
March 22, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Oh for the love of God…
Fred Glick
March 23, 2010 at 11:09 am
@Jeremy. Make sure when you are 65 that you tell Medicare that you don’t need to be covered!
Jeremy Isaac
March 23, 2010 at 12:46 pm
@Fred. I’m under no illusion that the government will have money for my medical care by the time I’m 65!
Al Lorenz
March 23, 2010 at 3:23 pm
I don’t want medicare, social security or this health care. I don’t want my kids in public schools. I would rather self insure.
Erica Ramus
March 23, 2010 at 5:46 pm
28% of agents don’t have health insurance??? And I would bet that a HUGE chunk of those who do are insured by a spouse’s benefits.
I have one agent in my office uninsured, and another who is under-insured (cheap policy that severely limits her care options / leads to her NOT getting appropriate care). So I see this personally.
My family is covered under my spouse’s benefits, and even then it stinks. I put thousands out of pocket in 2009 (deductibles, 20% our share, uncovered items) due to one 3-day hospitalization and a round of exams for my one son. Seriously–$8000 out of pocket. And that is WITH insurance. I cannot imagine being uninsured.
One bill was $1400 for a BLOOD TEST. What a joke. Let alone a MRI, several cat scans, and the 3 days in the hospital.
We need to figure something out. This may or may not be the solution. But we have to start somewhere. Families go BANKRUPT and lose their houses due to foreclosure because of medical bills.
Erion Shehaj
March 23, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Erica
Get with the program. We can’t let reality mess with our ideological debate just like that.
How dare you bring up Marxist-Leninist facts like those? 🙂
Fred Glick
March 23, 2010 at 6:03 pm
@Jeremy Believe it or not, we will have the money.
Deficit reduction actually is not as much of an issue than it is made out to be on certain media outlets nor is deficit financing a bad thing sometimes.
Since the private sector had absolutely no way to stimulate an economy after they made wrong calculations mid decade, the only way to get an economy going tis government spending.
The beauty of it this time is the lack of inflation because of the Chinese, the internet and the amount of people that are actually in the economy.
If you’d like more information from people that do not have skin in the game, let me know and I will be happy to send it along.
Be well,
Fred
Jeremy Isaac
March 24, 2010 at 12:17 am
I like how the deficit was a problem when Bush took it to then record levels, but its NOT a problem when Obama triples the obscene deficit that Bush left him. How convenient.
That being said, I have houses to sell, so I’m going to turn this debate over to the honorable Thomas Jefferson who was wiser than you or I. Take up a defense of this travesty with him or any of the other founders.
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
Fred Glick
March 23, 2010 at 6:11 pm
@Erica:
Al is never going to invite you to his cabin!
Fred Glick
March 23, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Today, from NAR….a slight bit of (their own) back patting:
NAR: New health plan helps Realtors
WASHINGTON – March 23, 2010 – The National Association of Realtors® (NAR) has a history of working with Congress to secure changes in the U.S. healthcare system. As the national voice for a profession of predominantly self-employed workers in which 28 percent have no health coverage, NAR has worked to make health care available and affordable for members.
While the health insurance issue remains politically charged and court challenges to the new law are inevitable, the bill, signed into law today by President Obama, contains some protections that Realtors have requested. Not all benefits kick in immediately.
Those benefits include:
• Who is covered. The new health care rules apply to individuals and families not already covered by an employer, self-employed individuals and families, and owners and employees of small businesses (those with 100 employees or less).
• Acceptance. Health insurance applicants cannot be turned down.
• Cancellation. People already covered by a health insurance policy cannot be cancelled.
• Pre-existing conditions. A common complaint among those without insurance was an inability to secure coverage if they had a pre-existing condition, which could be as simple as taking blood pressure drugs or insulin. Under the new law, insurers must cover all applicants even if they have a pre-existing condition.
• Waiting periods. In addition to covering pre-existing conditions, insurers cannot accept an applicant but force him/her to wait a long time before coverage kicks in for that pre-existing condition.
• Past claims. A history of past health claims cannot be used to charge more for coverage.
• Women. Insurers cannot charge women more than men.
• Older people. Insurers are limited on how much they can charge older adults. Prior to the new law, some insurers agreed to cover older adults but sometimes quoted high monthly premiums for doing so.
NAR maintains a website page with information on the recently passed legislation. The page also includes background information and answers questions about other health care concerns shared by Realtors.
Erica Ramus
March 23, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Damn. And I am such a “roughing it” kind of girl.
🙂