Going on a trip can be so much fun. While planning, packing and making arrangements for someone to watch the house or take care of the pets, the excitement builds.

Before you know it, you’re in the car or on the plane traveling to your destination.

Man's best friend may land him in the emergency room!

But if you’re a pet owner, there’s one kind of trip you never want to take: a tumble over your dog or cat!

Not exactly a vacation—but a very real problem many pet owners don’t take seriously enough.

Most people have experienced near-misses with their pets…nearly stepping on the dog glued to their feet as they cook over the stove, or almost tripping on the dog as he runs down the stairs just ahead.

But if you’re one of the more than 86,000 people who land in emergency room every year because you’ve tripped over your pet, you realize just how dangerous pets really are underfoot.

And the home isn’t the only place pet-related falls occur. They can also happen outside the home. For instance, if your dog becomes too excited while out for his daily walk, you could trip over his leash—or the curb—as he surges to chase another animal.

Bad weather only accentuates the problem, especially for the elderly, who lack balance and peripheral vision, says Idaho-based veterinarian Marty Becker. If they start to trip, Becker says, seniors can’t catch themselves.

This is “the same group who trips on throw rugs,” he adds.

According to Dr. Richard O’Brien of the American College of Emergency Physicians, fractures of the ankle or wrist are the most common injuries doctors see in emergency rooms. But a senior who falls may break a hip, leading to a myriad of other health issues.

Then there’s the matter of cost. Though your health insurance company may recognize the fact that your beloved dog or cat provides unconditional love and helps keep your blood pressure and stress levels at bay, it may raise your rates if you trip over your pet and land yourself in the hospital one time too many.

So watch out for your beloved tabby, do what you can to help avoid injury, and keep yourself and your family safe from the hazard of pet-tripping.

A stay in the hospital is no one’s idea of a vacation!

The prospect of being forced to buy liability insurance is causing an uproar among gun owners.

Earlier this year, a state lawmaker from Chicago proposed amending Illinois’ State Firearm Owners Identification Card Act to require gun owners to buy $1,000,000 in liability coverage. The policy would cover “any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.”

Under Rep. Kenneth Dunkin’s bill, which he introduced in February but has since tabled, failure to obtain insurance would render a gun owner in violation of the law. What’s more, the potential law would hold gun owners responsible for any injuries resulting from the use of the gun—even if it was stolen and not discharged by the owner himself.

Opponents see the bill as a sly way to curb gun ownership by imposing an additional financial burden. They affirm that users of illegal guns, who are responsible for the majority of gun violence, are unlikely to purchase insurance on a black-market weapon. Thus, they say, the bill simply puts penalizes law-abiding gun owners.

Nonetheless, proponents of similar legislation—Dunkin isn’t the first to float the idea—point to the high societal cost of gun-related deaths and injuries. According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, guns are the second-highest cause of fatal injury among ages 15-24 and 55-64. Further, gun violence is more prevalent in urban areas like Duncan’s Chicago district.

Read more

As a former Texan, it always saddens me to read the statistics and hear the stories about drunk driving and its effect on the people of the Lone Star State.

With nearly 14,000 people dying every year due to driving under the influence, Texas certainly carries more than its share of the blame where those numbers are concerned.

In fact, though the state still contains quite a few “dry” counties, where the sale of liquor is strictly prohibited, Texas has more alcohol-related accidents than any other state, with a history of traffic fatalities due to drunk driving second only to California.

That’s not exactly something to be proud of.

But things are about to change in Texas—so those who tend to drink and drive better pay attention.

Though current state law requires drivers to submit to breathalyzers or blood tests without a court order only if they cause an accident that results in injury or death, new proposals before Texas lawmakers would make those tests compulsory for anyone who:

• drives drunk with a child in the car
• causes an accident that leads to hospitalization
• has a prior intoxication felony or two DWI convictions

Also under discussion are random sobriety checkpoints in common areas of violation, which police would set up in an effort to deter drivers from operating motor vehicles while under the influence of alcohol.

As the penalties for drunk driving tighten nationwide, Texas may just lead the way toward a more sober, safer roadway.  Here’s one former Texan who would love to see that happen!

Bonus links:

Texas Senate Approves Anti-DWI Bills

State DUI Prevention Activities May Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving

CDC Impaired Driving Factsheet

Could the private health insurance market unravel with the passage of President Obama’s health care plan? That’s what the Wall Street Journal’s editorial team thinks will happen. Indeed, they say the plan is “the beginning of the end of private health insurance.” Here’s why they worry:

Obama hopes to introduce a public insurance option—a government-issued insurance policy that would essentially be Medicare for the middle class. Journal editorialists see an ulterior motive.

This public option will supposedly ‘compete’ with private alternatives. As President Obama likes to put it, those who are happy with the insurance they have now can keep it — and if they happen to prefer the government offering, well, gee whiz, that’s the free market at work. The reality is far different. Not only will the new program become the default coverage for the uninsured, but Democrats intend to game the system to precipitate — or if need be, coerce — an exodus to government from private insurance. Soon enough, that will be the only ‘option’ left.

The Wall Street Journal believes that the existence of a cheap, comprehensive public plan will make private insurance increasingly unattractive—to the point where insurers are left with no customers and we wake up one morning with a de facto single-payer system, like Canada’s.

Not surprisingly, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the lobby that represents insurers, has gone on record opposing the idea of introducing a public insurance option.

AHIP supports the idea of a ‘universal mandate,’ a law requiring Americans to obtain health insurance. Under a universal mandate, insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of age or pre-existing conditions. Massachusetts currently has such a mandate.

So far, President Obama has come short of endorsing a universal mandate, preferring to make insurance cheap enough and accessible enough that people will opt to buy it on their own.

Insurers needn’t get too nervous about an Obama health care plan: if the past is any indication, we’ll have our current system for the foreseeable future. Health care reform has a distinguished record of failure; from President Truman to President Clinton, plans have come and gone.

Bonus: Dr. Mario supports universal health care:

A basic human need like health care should not be monetized. Even our pack dinosaurs and humanoid mushrooms deserve coverage—a healthy workforce generates more points and 1-ups, increasing the chances of long-term gameplay for everyone.

Link

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 66 percent of adults age 20 and over are either overweight or obese. That means that close to three out of four people have a body mass index—a measure of overall body fat—of 25 or more.

That may not sound too bad on the surface, but it really is, considering a healthy BMI ranges anywhere from 18 to 25.

All that extra fat and weight we’re carrying around costs us billions of dollars in health care dollars every year. Why? Because the heavier America gets, the more preventive, diagnostic and treatment services we need to overcome the medical issues obesity causes.

Anyone who has “dieted” at some point in their life (and who hasn’t?) knows how hard it is to lose that extra weight and keep it off. For some, weight loss and gain becomes a self-defeating cycle, causing discouragement and even more weight gain.

Whether caused by a lack of self control—as some critics believe—a negative hereditary scorecard, food addiction, lifestyle or one of many other factors, the end result is the same: living life overweight results in numerous health problems, a lack of quality of life and, often, early death.

For those overweight enough to carry a BMI of 40 or greater—basically 100 extra pounds—gastric bypass surgery may be an option. During the surgery, the stomach pouch is made much smaller than normal, reducing the amount of food a person’s stomach can hold.

This enables overweight and obese adults to lose large amounts of weight quickly—and gives them a chance to:

• reestablish healthy eating and exercise habits
• reduce or eliminate health issues like hypertension, diabetes and other dangerous diseases
• start life anew thinner and healthier
• live longer

Though definitely not a cure-all and subject to human error (like overeating, which can stretch the stomach back out), studies have shown that, when used as a long-term tool, gastric bypass drastically reduces the number of health insurance claims filed due to obesity.

Because of this, more and more health insurance companies are covering the surgery in an effort to get and keep America healthy, and save money in the long run.

If you’re severely overweight and aren’t sure if gastric bypass is a covered option under your current health insurance plan, try reading the fine print—or call your health insurance company to find out for sure.

Then talk to your doctor, get educated, and weigh the pros and cons. With all the facts at your disposal, the final choice is up to you—and your insurer.

It’s not easy living in Florida. Sure, the weather’s great, but with insurance rates poised to increase further and another hurricane season approaching, many people are probably wondering if the sunny skies and warm temperatures are worth it.

Floridians already pay more for property insurance than almost everyone else. Only Texans pay more, according to the Insurance Information Institute (III). This makes sense: Florida has a lot of pricey real estate lining its hurricane-prone coasts. And the state’s insurance woes are likely to grow if past trends continue: between 1980 and 2003, Florida’s coastal population grew by 75 percent.

Oddly, Florida residents are victims of low insurance rates, not high ones. Let me explain. If, throughout the years, insurance premiums had accurately matched the risk, they would’ve been considerably higher, and many homeowners simply would not be living in Florida today. Maybe they’d be shivering through winter with the rest of us, but they wouldn’t be worrying about skyrocketing property insurance rates.

Instead, Florida’s artificially low insurance rates, which, to date, have reflected politics more than risk models, effectively gave people a green light to build in hurricane alley. Now Florida officials are realizing that rates need to increase in order to ensure there’s enough cash on hand when the next big storm arrives. Citizens, the state-run insurer, has $450 billion in exposure yet only $3 billion in surplus.

“Any kind of significant storm event would, or could, wipe that out in a few short hours,” James Malone, chairman of Citizens, said in February 2009.

State Farm, one of Florida’s largest insurers, decided to leave the state after officials said they couldn’t raise rates by 45 percent. Now many of their policyholders are looking to insure their homes with Citizens, adding to frailty of that insurer.

It seems that both consumers and government officials are going to have to get used to paying more for insurance—to catch up for lost time. Or there’s always Idaho, which has plenty of sunshine and the lowest property insurance rates in the country …

If you’ve ever gone camping and accidentally left a sack of food out overnight, you know how much critters like coyotes, raccoons and skunks love to forage through our discards for scraps—and anything else they can get their paws on.

Place your trash next to the garbage can outside your home and you’ll often get the same results.

Just like us, animals of all shapes and sizes have to eat, feed their babies and find a safe, warm place to curl up and sleep. But when they take up residence in our homes, yards, attics or trash cans, that’s where most people draw the line.

Sometimes animals wander onto our property and cause damage to our homes in an effort to eat or get inside. That’s where prevention becomes important, for our own safety, the animal’s, and for the sake of our home insurance, which pays to repair the damage when animals cross into the space where we live and work.

Recent news reports document animals like hungry coyotes venturing into suburban neighborhoods like never before in search of food. And  mountain dwellers sometimes witness bears trying to enter their homes for the very same reason.

Instances like these can pose a threat to the safety of both man and beast.

To avoid crossing paths with nature at home, we need to take steps to make our homes and properties secure and less inviting—to small and large animals alike.

If wildlife in your area seem to gravitate toward your home, try:

• Checking your home’s exterior for holes, gaps and other points of entry or exit
• Placing fencing around areas of the property you want to protect
• Putting trash in closed containers with secure lids

For more ideas on keeping wildlife away, check out our article titled, When Animals Invade: Crossing Paths with Nature at Home. And if you have any stories to share on the subject, we’d love to hear them!

Last week, a visitor to our web site submitted the following question (we’re taking questions now—ask yours here):

If a tree in my yard falls on neighbor’s roof, does my insurance pay for the damage? What if a tree is ready to fall down on my house—will my insurance company pay to remove the tree?

It’s a good question, and I suspect that it’s one that many homeowners have, and like most questions involving insurance, there are more shades of grey than appears at first blush. Read the answer here.

But the second question—will my insurer pay to have a weak tree removed—points to a very common misconception about insurance in general, and this misunderstanding centers around this seemingly straightforward question: What is insurance for?

While insurance has changed over the years, it still retains its original purpose: to insulate people from the destructive and costly whims of man and nature.

Actually, the addition of “man” (aka Homo litigious) to the mix is relatively new. Most of the big property-casualty insurers (the ones insuring your homes and cars) started out providing insurance to Midwestern farmers, who were (and still are) victim to the cruel hand of mother nature. (The addition of liability coverage came with our country’s gradual embrace of lawsuits as a cash-acquisition strategy.)

Anyway, back to the point. Insurance is supposed to cover us in the event of accident or extreme weather event or other calamity that would be financially perilous. It is not meant to pay for things we’d simply rather not pay for, like tree removal, for example. That would count as maintenance, and if insurers got in the business of paying to maintain houses, well, they’d either go bankrupt or raise your premiums by 1000 percent.

Insurers get a lot of flack, and some of it is earned. But some of their unpopularity comes from a basic misunderstanding of what insurance is supposed to cover.

Related:

• The Cost of Insurance: Anatomy of a Premium

Does this look familiar in your home?

Childhood obesity is quickly becoming an epidemic in our country. Of concern to parents, doctors and health insurance companies alike, more than one-third of all children in the U.S. now fall in the overweight or obese category.

What’s so bad about a few extra pounds? you ask. Don’t most kids outgrow that “chubby” phase and grow up to be slim, average-sized adults?

Some do. But even if they lose excess weight as adults, chubby kids aren’t guaranteed a healthy life, says a study by the Institute of Preventive Medicine.

According to that study, obese children actually have a significantly higher risk of heart disease in adulthood—as early as age 25—even if they lose the excess weight.

And heart disease isn’t the only health risk that threatens. Other weight-related illnesses like diabetes and hypertension also rear their ugly heads as overweight children age.

Experts predict that by the time today’s adolescents turn 35, up to 37 percent of men and 44 percent of women will be obese. With that much risk inherent, finding good health insurance is also likely to become challenging.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. By becoming good examples, demonstrating a healthy lifestyle and teaching our kids to be active and eat nutritiously from the time they’re young, we can help them stay healthy, get insured—and maybe even live longer.

For more information on this growing epidemic, read our article titled Weigh in: do your kids make the grade?