That being said, I’d like to devote the rest of this article to exploring the question of whether one should purchase the most comprehensive health care policy or purchase only cheaper catastrophic coverage. There is an valid argument supporting each position.

Because of the nature of our system, insurance companies will continue to raise your rates until they have priced themselves out of your budget and are forced into either joining the nation’s 47 million uninsured, or back into the market to shop for a new company.

It’s been speculated that insurance companies do this because they have determined statistically that you are more likely to use your policy after a certain number of years with them then you would have in the initial time of coverage.. Whether or not that’s true is open for debate. Whether or not they will continuously raise your rates, is not. They will

If they raise your rates to the point where you can not afford to insure with them any longer and the rates for other companies seem appealing, be aware that if you have used your insurance for any major health condition, from heart problems to cancer, to even depression, you may not be insurable with another company. You may not be able to switch to another company no matter how much your present insurer may increase its rates.

If you choose to make your initial purchase based on price, with perhaps a high deductible, co-payments, or minimal coverage, you may be stuck with this forever. Quite a few people who chose basic coverage over comprehensive coverage, have found, to their chagrin, that having once used their policy, that they have fewer options.

On the other hand, just having insurance, however minimal, is far better than having none at all. If you can show an insurance card, to any doctor or hospital, you will find, if it’s within “network”, that you’ll be given a substantial discount, and in most cases, offered services, and billed later.

This author had been paying an exorbitant amount of money for health insurance. When the last increase letter was received I switched to a catastrophic only policy. In doing so I saved close to $800 a month. Several months into my new policy I had need of serious medical care. I spent two days in the hospital for which I was build $17,000. Before the claim was submitted to my insurance company the hospital and doctors involved (about 20 of them) all applied my network discount. My final bill, from all 20 combined was reduced to just over $2000. The insurance company with which I had a $5,000 deductible, paid nothing. I paid to $2000 and in so doing was already better off, after less than three months, than had I continued to pay on the more comprehensive policy.

Whether it’s best to purchase the best coverage, or only the least expensive, catastrophic-only coverage, is up for debate. What is not up for debate what is immutable fact, is that in America in the 21st century you must have health insurance of some kind.

____________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild is an independent health insurance agent and a representative of some of the highest rated insurers in the United States. His Web Site, Simple Health Coverage was created to educate, inform and connect consumers with the best carriers, policies agents and choices in their geographic area.

Health insurance companies calculate financial risk by determining who is most likely to actually use their services and costs them money. They have found that you are more likely to use their services after you’ve had them for many years then and during the initial years. Somehow statistically that makes sense. As a result your insurance policy continues to raise an average of 15% per year. It has less to do with your history, or even your age than it has to do with how long you’ve been insured with that company

The way to deal with this situation is to change policies to change companies every few years. Many insurance agents I know make their living helping people doing this. It helps the agent earned top commission and it helps the consumer can get better rates.

Before you take this leap however, there are a few things you need to consider, one of which is that if you have developed a condition during the years in which you’ve been insured with one company, that condition may not be covered by the new company, – at least not for a number of years.

Whatever you do, do not cancel your old policy until you’ve acquired a new one, and don’t shop around on your own. Find a reputable broker., or independent agent, one who represents a variety of companies. He or she will be able to tell you, without conflict of interest, if one particular carrier may be better for your particular circumstances than another, or that you might be better off staying with what you have, or even seeing if you can piggyback on your spouses group policy.

There are even ways to save money by having several policies, each covering one aspect of your health needs. Carriers are offering alternatives to comprehensive coverage, some of which are quite creative and may hit your target. On the other hand, some of these alternative methods, though pulling less out-of-pocket in the short run, could lead to greater exposure and less true coverage under certain circumstances. Having a broker you trust, to whom you can address questions, is a very good idea.

The health-insurance industry is in a constant flux. Prices are changing all the time. Coverage is also changing all the time. Research online. Find a website with a quoting engine and spend some time comparing the various prices and coverage available in your area. Then discuss them with your independent agent.

The world of health insurance is complicated and confusing, but do not join the 47 million Americans will be unprotected in an emergency.

While most Americans enjoy and appreciate our capitalist system, many believe that some things do not belong in that game. The most advanced countries have eliminated health-care from their list of entrepreneurial avenues. And whether or not you concur, or disagree, there is no doubt that profit is a contributing factor to the rising cost of health care.

The lack of uniformity is another contributor. Every state has its own set of rules. Every state has its own licensing regulations. In addition rates vary by the area in which you live and the geographic areas in which you wish to be covered.

The absence of preventative medical treatment is also a factor. Consider how many serious ailments might have been averted had they been discovered in the earliest phases. An increased availability of less expensive diagnostic and preventative treatments, could greatly reduce health care costs in America.

The continuously rising costs of health care in itself has led to the increase of health insurance premiums. New treatments, new discoveries, new tools and new regulations have all caused our basic health care ticket to rise dramatically, forcing insurers to increase rates accordingly.

Fraud, litigation, a degrading environment, improper diet, lifestyle choices, and stress are all factors leading to an increase in health care conditions and the rising costs.

We seem to be in an endless circle. The more effective and expensive a treatment, the more people will default on their payments, forcing an increase in the costs for those who are able to pay. As the costs of treatment increases, so does the cost to the insurer and thus the insurance premium. As insurance premiums increase, fewer people are able to afford coverage, resulting in more people defaulting on their medical payments, again leading to further increases in treatment and coverage, and so on and so on and so on.

While it’s easy to exclusively blame the insurance carriers, it would be wrong, for they’re just playing their part in the game. They’re no worse than the officers of any successful corporation. No worse than the oil companies. It’s the nature of the business, not the individual, that has them profiting from suffering. The agents, the general agents, the carriers, the re-insurers are all just doing their part, keeping the ball rolling. If the ball seems to be flat, don’t blame those keeping it in play, repair the hole, or get a new ball.

_________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild is an independent health insurance agent and a representative of some of the highest rated insurers in the United States. His Web Site, Simple Health Coverage was created to educate, inform and connect consumers with the best carriers, policies agents and choices in their geographic area.

Some policies don’t cover doctor visits, while others only partially cover a limited number of visits per year. Some policies won’t pay out dime-one until after you’ve exhausted a high deductible. Some family policies won’t cover one family member until two or more of your family members have exhausted their high deductible.

Some policies won’t cover prescriptions and others will with the co-pay, but only after a separate deductible. Some policies will cover, with a co-pay only the cheapest of prescriptions leaving you on your own for more recent, expensive formulas.

Some policies will make you go through hoops and get permission from a primary physician before you can consult a specialist. Others will partially cover physicians visits, but will not cover any of the procedures, or tests he may require you to take.

Some policies will cover most of your hospital treatment but little or none of your follow-up outpatient treatment, where most of your expenses will be incurred

All policies have limits to what they’re willing to pay out over the lifetime of your insurance. Some policies limit how much money they’re willing to cover towards specific treatments.

Some policies have deductibles so high that you’d have to experience a serious illness before you can avail yourself of any of the covered remedies of which you’d dearly paid each monthly.

Know what you’re getting before or you buy. Read the fine print. There’s lots of fine print. Don’t trust anyone. Don’t take anyone’s word for anything.

Insurance companies are in it for profit. No matter how nice their commercials they are not in it for charity. Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware, and beware you should be.

Go online, search for an independent agent in your area. Finding an independent agent is essential because they represent a variety of insurance companies. While there is no guarantee that they will not steer you in the direction of the company with which they will make the most profit, their licenses expressly forbid that and, in most cases, they’ll have options enough so they won’t have to.

Find an online quoting engine. Many independent agents will have one on their website. The quoting engine can offer price comparison between the most competitive insurance companies and policies available in your area. Type in your particulars, press the button and then after reviewing the results, request a call from your choice of agents.

_________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild is an independent health insurance agent and a representative of some of the highest rated insurers in the United States. His Web Site, Simple Health Coverage was created to educate, inform and connect consumers with the best carriers, policies agents and choices in their geographic area.

When your employer offers health insurance, pretty much the only decision you need to make is whether or not to accept it. When you’re on your own, having to research all the options and decide what is most appropriate for you you may be overwhelmed by the choices and costs.

In your employer’s plan everyone in the company paid the same rates. Now you’re faced with more decisions than Baskin Robbins has flavors, but unlike buying ice cream, your decision has consequences.

The first thing you’ll discover is that every state has a different set of rules and laws that govern and regulate the insurance industry for that state. Prices vary, not only from state to state, but zip code to zip code. There are dozens of insurance carriers to choose from, including names familiar to you from television, which may or may not offer you the best deal.

You’re going to have to do some investigating and you’re going to be shocked, especially coming from group health policies, where pretty much everything is covered, from doctor visits to prescriptions, and everyone is acccepted by the very nature of group coverage.

You are going to find that individual and family and insurance is quite selective. Pre-existing conditions will either be excluded, not covered at all or be a cause for your rejection altogether. It is important before you apply for any insurance policy to know what the restrictions are. One of the worst things that could happen is for you to be rejected because of a medical condition. Rejection by one carrier will raise a red flag and possibly cause you to be either rejected, out of hand, or forced to pay a higher premium with other carriers.

You should also make certain when buying a policy that you’re guaranteed not to raise your premium for at least 12 months. Insurance companies often offer a teaser rate to get you to sign up with them and then raise your rates soon after. All of the companies going to consistently raise your rates, just make sure you’re rates are locked in for a least a year.

Make sure you’re with a reputable firm. Some of the offerings sound great but unless you’re an expert you may not see the loopholes which render the policy useless to your needs. Your best bet is to consult with a health insurance professional, a broker, an independent agent, one who represents a multiple insurance companies. Such a person knows the business, can answer questions and lead you in the right direction.

Another option is to consult an online quoting engine, available through the Web Sites of many independent agents. Here you can compare a variety of health insurance policies and companies, and note the variety of prices and options of coverage.

Quoting engines are nice, but do not forget that they only display the “preferred” rates, which may not necessarily reflect your actual rate. They also lack the ability to advise you about loopholes, and potential pitfalls. For that you need a trained and licensed health insurance agent.

___________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild is an independent health insurance agent and a representative of some of the highest rated insurers in the United States. His Web Site, Simple Health Coverage was created to educate, inform and connect consumers with the best carriers, policies agents and choices in their geographic area.

I know that some of the big boys including Google, Yahoo and News Corp. have invested a whole lot of money in Web 2.0, even collaborated on standards, so there must be use for it, but I, for one have absolutely no idea what that might be.

First lets define, as best we can, what Web 20 is. Supposedly it’s the continuing development of the Web as a collaborative effort, the implementation of applications that permit users to generate their own content rather than leaving it to a select few who are schooled in the art and science of Web development. It is the creation of content by the viewer

Okay, that’s nice, but back in Web 1.0 we had forums, which did exactly that, and which today, are still the most effective way, I think of collaborating and disseminating information. Blogs and feeds are nice, but they can’t compare to the forum structure.

……….

Social bookmarking. I remember how I felt about the concept was first introduced and how I felt about storing my bookmarks publicly. I thought it was absurd. The places I visit on the Web, or prod my interests are private. I have no desire to tell the world where I’ve been and what I have been into, and no interest or, need to critique every website I visit.

Now, I understand how the concept of bookmarking and tagging (which are just keywords), can benefit the search engines. I can see how this is ready-made spider food for the big boys, but as a system of cataloging and searching unto itself, give me Google over Tag Clouds any day.

……….

I have a teenage daughter she lives on MySpace. Personally I see no value in it. I understand how teenagers can be attracted to MySpace. To teenagers socializing is everything. But to the adults of the world, what the hell?

I remember all those people who stayed with AOL for so many years because they liked their little groups and chatting back and forth with the friends they’d met in their little walled community. I always thought it was trite. I still do and I think that social networking groups are nothing more than this millennium’s version of that AOL kiddie land.

……….

RSS feeds, I’ve really never understood why anybody would want information forced on them. Now let me qualify that, I remember a few years back, one of the cable news stations offered a desktop news service. I subscribed for time. But in a short while I realized I was losing control of my life. Pushed news became a distraction and an impediment in the management of my work schedule.

Now, I can see how feeds set up on a particular page like My Yahoo can have value if you want to set it up as your home page, the place where you go when you have the time and inclination to get the news, whether traditional or grassroots created. I think that’s awesome. Beyond that, I think, “ So what.”

……….

Blogging I do not know why Google prefers blogs over static content. One would think that if search engines would like to catalog the Web they would need static pages, to be most effective.

I do not understand why Google supposedly wants changing content. I believe changing content should be cataloged in a place where changing content is known to reside. A blog directory, a directory of current commentary by individual writers is definitely beneficial, but I see no reason for it to be intermingled with static objective information.

If I want to learn about home remedies for poison ivy, I would prefer a static Web page listing all the traditional treatments for scratching that itch. I am not really interested in reading about Maggie Jone’s rash. If Maggie discovers a new treatment, she can write the author, or post it to the appropriate forum.

I’m not saying that blogging is not important. I blog. It’s for those people who care about Maggie Jones’s rash and whatever information can be gleaned from the comments about Maggie Jones’s rash, but once again I think that it can be accomplished more easily with the information residing in its proper place . That’s just my feeling

It could be that I’m getting old, it could be that I’ve been on the web for so long and had particular expectations of how the “Information Superhighway” would evolve, and Candy Land was not among my list of possible outcomes.

……….

Of all the Web 2.0 elements, the one that makes the most sense is video. Video is an effective teaching tool, and a very effective way of disseminating information, but the way that the video hosting sites are set up, with friends and comments and ratings and channels seems bit childish and superfluous.

I’ve always enjoyed and benefited from Web Sites that contained and featured multiple articles about a given subject. Exchange articles for videos and you have an even more effective method of communication. But the other stuff, the Web 2.0 stuff, I just don’t see the point.

I may be wrong, but I think I can see the Emperor’s ding-a-ling.

___________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild, founder and president Artitude Inc. and Strategic Web Success has been helping businesses achieve success on the Web since 1994. He’s a master of traditional traffic generating techniques as well as innovative Web 2.0 strategies.

]]> http://artitude.com/ghost_writer/why-web-20/feed/ 0 http://artitude.com/ghost_writer/video-and-search-engine-optimization/ http://artitude.com/ghost_writer/video-and-search-engine-optimization/#comments Fri, 06 Jun 2008 03:34:11 +0000 Jeff http://artitude.com/ghost_writer/?p=5 One of the most effective methods for marketing on the Internet and generating Web Site traffic, is through the production and distribution of Internet video. Done properly, Web video can create dramatic and nearly immediate results, however if not done well, it will have at best have no effect and can possibly even negatively impact your Internet marketing strategies.

I do not suggesting that you hire a professional production crew. An amateur video can go just as far and be just as effective, but it’s essential to understand a few things:

It is imperative that you keep your video short and to the point. The length of your video should be limited to between one and five minutes. People who are looking for information on the Internet, particularly in the video arena, are looking for quick concise information. Many of the most successful videos on the web are actually under 60 seconds.

Make certain that your video has value. If a surfer finds and takes the time to view your video, he is looking for expedited knowledge. You must provide the information promised. Failure to do so will produce negative comments negative ratings and destroy the possibility of a positive viral effect.

To be well received, a video should be professionally crafted and by that I mean, it should have a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning should be a brief (ten second or so) introduction, explaining the nature of the video, the middle should be solid meat , all wrapped up nice and neatly with a ten second close. These are not hard and fast rules, obviously, but they should give you an idea about basic structure.

Make certain your videos if not humorous, are at least entertaining. Competition is stiff. If you wish your videos to stand out, they must produce some satisfaction in the eyes of viewer. Some of the most effective videos, even on topics as dry as Internet marketing, are conceived in humor, not necessarily childish slapstick, but enough mirth to make a viewer smile inside while learning.

If you produce your video properly, you will be widely accepted and word of it will spread throughout your corner of the web and beyond, bearing the fruit of increased page views and a boost to your bottom line, which after all is why you’re doing it. Failure to craft your video properly will cause it to die on the vine.

____________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Wild, founder and president Artitude Inc. and Strategic Web Success has been helping businesses achieve success on the Web since 1994. He’s a master of traditional traffic generating techniques as well as innovative Web 2.0 strategies.

For that matter, I have always disagreed with the use of links as a determination of quality and thus position in the search engines. I do not link to my favorite Sites. I read them. I utilize them. I bookmark them in my browser. I have no need to critique them, or share them.

Let the search engines do their own work. Let the search engines figure out a better way to spider and catalog Sites. The idea that superior Sites have a greater number of back links is nonsense. I’ve got better things to do when researching a topic or a product, whether for business or personal use, than to write an opinion, or create a link on one of my own Sites. If it’s something I want to buy, I just go ahead an buy it. If its a project, I’m researching for business, the last thing I want is for my competition to find it too.

I feel like the Web is upside down. Linking? Linking! What does it matter really? Black hatters devote their time to creating a fake trail of links to feed the engines and any genuine links are created by people who have nothing better to do with their time than to tell the world their every thought. If not for search engine placement why else would a competent adult feel the need to create back links? It’s ridiculous.

I think the idea of social bookmarking is absurd. Social networks are trite. Blogs, are fun but far less navigable and far less reliable than static informational Sites. Directory linking is another absurdity (when was the last time you used a directory to find anything? Or for that matter when was the last time you sought information through a social bookmarking Site?

Articles are important, if they have any quality , but PLR and outsourced articles from people who barely speak the language is ridiculous. The duplicate content penalty has effectively destroyed the value of creating an authority Site filled with articles created by other contributors.

Web video is an awesome technology, but I do not care about your opinion of the video I just watched. I know whether is made me smile or vomit.

I don’t want to join your community. I don’t want to be part of your group. I don’t want to be your “friend”. All I want is to be able to work hard, smart and well, so I can feed my family. I don’t know you, and the truth is I really don’t want to. And if Web 2.0 is about creating one giant interactive community, I don’t want any part of it either.

On the other hand, creating traffic is what I do for a living and whether I think Web 2.0 is natural BS, or artificial manure, it is reality. I wish it weren’t, but it is and if there’s one thing this old guy had learned, is that if you want to play the game, you’ve got to learn, master, accept, and play by the rules. So what do you think?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Wild is President of Artitude Inc, http://artitude.com. and CEO of StrategicWebSuccess.com, http://strategicwebsuccess.com . He and his staff have been assisting businesses to achieve success on the Web since 1994. They can take a Site with minimal traffic and turn it into a major highway. Visit the Site, then contact our SEO team.

There is so little agreement on the definition of Web 2.0 as to render the very words meaningless. What is generally agreed upon however, is that Web has become more interactive. Collaboration is the word that best defines the current state of the Web.

As the Web matures, static pages are being replaced by dynamic content and content that is geared to ward and created by the individual user. The technology used to produce the content is becoming far more powerful and far more personalized.

Blogs are a perfect example of the new technology. Blogs are interactive through comments and collaboration and if they are dynamic by their very nature. Blog content is ever changing and very personalized.

Video hosting sites are another example. Here content is created by the viewer and from comments, re-created and expanded upon by other viewers. Again this is a far more personalized, self-perpetuating, dynamic and powerful experience then had been available in the days of static content created by a select few and viewed passively by an audience.

Websites can be managed as a collaborative effort by many not just the original site author. Sites can grow on their own.

Simplicity is another characteristic of this period that we refer to as Web 2.0. Easy navigation is paramount and user experience is the primary consideration.

Directories are becoming a thing of the past as users define sites with personalized tags instead of traditional key words, and link lists are being replaced by social bookmarking sites.

While there is no real second generation of this thing we call the World Wide Web, it is obvious that it has evolved into a far more personal and dynamic experience than most would have imagined in the early days of the Web.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Jeff Wild, founder and president Artitude Inc. and Strategic Web Success has been helping businesses achieve success on the Web since 1994. He’s a master of traditional traffic generating techniques as well as innovative Web 2.0 strategies.