Insurance Information | All About Insurance Online

Programming note: Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich will appear tonight at 9 p.m. ET on Larry King Live.

Washington (CNN) — Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s announcement Wednesday morning that he will support the Senate’s health care legislation has reduced the bill’s opponents in the House to 204, now 12 votes shy of the 216 needed to prevent President Obama from scoring a major victory on his top domestic priority.

“The president’s visit to my district … underscored the urgency of this vote,” Kucinich said at a news conference Wednesday morning. “I have doubts about the bill … [but] I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”

According to an ongoing CNN analysis, 26 House Democrats, including nine who supported the House plan in November, have indicated that they would join a unified Republican caucus in opposing the Senate plan, which passed in that chamber December 24 with the minimum required 60 votes.

Nonetheless, House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut said Monday after a meeting with rank-and-file Democrats that “the votes are there” to pass the health care bill.

Among 26 Democrats who will vote against the bill is Rep. Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, who confirmed his opposition Monday.

“Health care reform is needed, but the bill before us is too expensive, does not adequately address rising medical costs and skyrocketing insurance premiums, and tries to do too much too soon,” McIntyre said in a written statement. “We simply cannot afford to create a new federal bureaucracy that costs nearly $1 trillion when our national debt is $12 trillion and there is no plan in place to address it. I will not vote for it.”

Proponents of the health care plan need 216 votes to pass the Senate measure. No Republicans have indicated that they will vote for the bill, which means Democratic leaders must rely solely on votes from their own members. Democrats hold 253 House seats.

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House plan in November, Kucinich is the only member to come out in support of the Senate bill. Seventeen have indicated that they will vote against the Senate plan as written, 11 remain uncommitted, and eight did not return repeated calls for comment.

One member, Parker Griffith of Alabama, became a Republican in December. An additional member, Rep. Eric Massa of New York, resigned his seat last week.

Two top Republican vote-counters, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, released a memo last week saying that a relatively small number of Democrats hold a tremendous amount of sway on the issue.

“We believe House passage of the Senate’s health care bill will ultimately be decided by the 37 remaining House Democrats who voted NO to a government takeover last November, and the … 21 House Democrats who originally voted YES, but may now be on the fence,” they wrote.

CNN contacted a number of House Democrats who voted in favor of the November House bill and who also represent conservative or competitive districts. Of those, eight — Reps. Michael Arcuri of New York, Marion Berry of Arkansas, Tim Bishop of New York, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, Jerry Costello of Illinois, Nick Rahall II of West Virginia and Bart Stupak of Michigan — said they would vote against the Senate bill as written but would consider supporting it with significant changes.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, who also supported the House plan, said he would vote against the Senate bill outright.

Stupak leads a coalition of conservative Democrats who may play a key role in the health care vote calculus. These lawmakers favor modifying the Senate health care bill to include an amendment from Stupak that will further restrict ways abortions can be funded. During the House health care overhaul debate, 64 Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak amendment.

The Michigan congressman had been negotiating with House Democratic leaders to address the abortion issue, but House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said last week that those negotiations had ended.

House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, who recently discussed his concerns over the abortion issue with Stupak, said Monday night: “If they brought the bill down, they’re not stopping any abortions. They are stopping millions of people from getting health insurance.”

Waxman’s committee was one of several to review the House plan last year.

House Democratic leaders also may try to help their members by allowing them to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may call for a vote on a rule that would simply “deem” the Senate bill passed. The House then would proceed to a separate vote on the more popular changes to the Senate bill.

Modifying the Senate bill would require use of a parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation, which allows a measure to pass the Senate with a simple majority vote of 51, rather than the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster. However, Senate rules allow the passing of a reconciliation bill only after the underlying bill has been signed into law.

Several House members who oppose the bill as written are skeptical that the Senate will address their concerns in a reconciliation package once the measure has been signed into law.

“From the beginning, Congressman Arcuri has been opposed to the Senate bill,” a spokesman said in a statement. “If there are so-called guaranteed fixes from the Senate through the reconciliation process, Congressman Arcuri would carefully review these changes by the Senate and would need some way to ensure that their guarantees would absolutely be included in a final bill. As with any piece of legislation, he would review all proposed changes before casting his vote.”

Pelosi and House Majority Whip James Clyburn have said in recent days that they will have enough votes when the measure comes up. But Clyburn said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that they still lacked the votes to secure a victory.

“No, we don’t have them as of this morning, but we’ve been working this thing all weekend,” he said.

Massive advertising campaigns both for and against reform may be responsible for the high volume of phone calls flooding Democratic House offices.

“The House phone system is overloaded due to an unprecedented amount of calls attributed to the significant interest in the health care bill,” a House Administration Committee spokesman said Tuesday. CNN received a busy signal at least once at nearly every House office it called this week.

CNN’s Dana Bash, Lisa Desjardins, Evan Glass, Alan Silverleib, Deirdre Walsh and Robert Yoon contributed to this report

Editor’s note: Anthony Coley is the former communications director and chief spokesman for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. He works as a director at the Brunswick Group, a communications consulting firm.

(CNN) — Dear Tavis: Although we’ve never met, I feel like I know you. I’ve followed your career and listened to your commentary for over a decade.

During that time you’ve inspired me and challenged me. You gave me reasons to smile, to hope and to dream.

Most recently you’ve left me scratching my head.

Your unwarranted assault against President Obama’s creation of policies that aim to lift up all Americans is particularly disturbing. Equally troubling is your upcoming travel to the president’s hometown to press your case for a new “black agenda” in the Obama administration.

Perhaps this wasn’t your intent, but such rhetoric suggests that the president has been ignoring the pressing concerns of African-Americans — which is just not the case.

Black America’s destiny is intertwined with that of all Americans. We all sink or swim together. America will never reach its full potential unless all the differing communities come together, united in purpose, to secure our shared future.

Not too long ago you seemed to agree with that view. In the forward of your 2009 book, “Accountable: Making America as Good as Its Promise,” you write:

“We, the people, have a big job ahead to hold our elected officials and ourselves accountable. Therefore, we decided, at the inception of this book, that unlike the titles that precede, we would address readers including and beyond the African-American community.

” ‘Accountable’ is aimed at the total American community, in the belief that we need ‘all hands on deck’ in this ambitious and perpetual process, regardless of background, socioeconomic level, or ethnicity.”

Why write a book aimed at all communities if you didn’t believe it takes a comprehensive effort to tackle issues of concern to all of us, most especially African- Americans?

African-Americans are not alone in our quest for well-paying jobs with benefits, safe schools and communities, and access to quality and affordable health care. The rest of America wants those same things. The concerns of both are inextricably linked.

And that’s been the beauty of Barack Obama’s campaign and presidency. He’s abandoned the entire us-vs.-them approach to governing and has refused to play the divisive racial politics of yesteryear. Thankfully, the president has focused his efforts on policies that would create an environment for all communities to thrive and prosper and, in so doing, strengthen America.

“A rising tide lifts all boats,” is how another young president, John F. Kennedy, described the thought in September 1963.

Three months later the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. shared similar views: “All life is interrelated, somehow we’re caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a singe garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

It took just a generation for our nation’s first African-American president to build a campaign and administration that gave these words new life. And the impact this approach is having on the African-American community is impressive.

Just consider health care, the issue of the moment.

We all benefited when the Obama administration invested some $850 million last year in community health centers across the nation. Among those most notably helped were the children, seniors and working families who live in economically distressed neighborhoods that lack well-trained doctors and quality facilities.

The second bill Obama signed into law expanded the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Millions of kids who lacked health insurance now have the health care they need and deserve because of this historic effort.

And for the past year, Obama has been fighting for a health reform bill that expands access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Those who stand to benefit most are the 50 million Americans who don’t have health care and millions more who can’t afford it because of a pre-existing medical condition. As you well know, a disproportionate amount of these people are African-Americans.

This is not to suggest that all is perfect in our community. Unemployment remains unacceptably high — nearly twice the national average. The Obama administration has acknowledged the challenge and has not let its foot off the gas. In addition to last year’s Recovery Act (which invested millions in job training for dislocated workers and summer jobs for young people, among other notable investments), the president has signed the HIRE act, a new $18 billion jobs bill. And yet he still doesn’t seem satisfied:

“Now, make no mistake: While this jobs bill is absolutely necessary, it is by no means enough. There is a lot more we need to do to spur hiring in the private sector and bring about a full economic recovery.”

Brother Tavis, I’m not questioning your sincerity and I hope your voice remains a part of the national dialogue for years to come. We all agree that there’s more work to do in the African-American community. Indeed, we’ve still got rivers to cross. My argument is just that we are not in the boat alone. We must all work together to get to the other side. Thankfully, we finally have a president who not only gets it — he’s leading the way.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Anthony Coley.

New York (CNN) — A federal judge said Friday that he will not approve a proposed $657 million settlement for people sickened after working on the World Trade Center site until it is negotiated further.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said legal fees must be lowered and paid by an insurance fund set up by the city, individual plaintiffs must be given a proposed dollar amount before being asked to opt in or out of the proposal and Hellerstein himself must supervise how plaintiffs’ claims are categorized.

The category of illnesses the 10,000 workers claim to have suffered would affect the payout.

Hellerstein’s remarks came after 10 plaintiffs offered a variety of views at the settlement hearing. The judge had moved the proceeding to a larger courtroom than the one he usually uses to accommodate the many lawyers and plaintiffs involved.

He has set a final hearing for April 12. Ninety-five percent of the plaintiffs must agree to the proposal for it to be finalized.

The proposed agreement comes after six years of legal wrangling — a sometimes excruciating wait for his clients, said Marc Bern, one of the lawyers representing the workers. Many of his clients worked rescuing victims from the terrorist attack or removing debris after the World Trade Center toppled. Later, some found their health deteriorated, with many suffering from asthma, other respiratory issues and blood cancer, Bern said last week.

WTC Captive, created with a $1 billion federal grant, provides insurance coverage to New York City and its debris-removal contractors. In the aftermath of 9/11, New York was unable to get adequate amounts of liability insurance on the private market for the rescue, recovery and debris-removal work done at the World Trade Center site.

The settlement would provide a system to compensate workers who made injury claims. This would include construction workers, firefighters, police officers and other workers and volunteers. The settlement also would fund a special insurance policy providing additional compensation to any plaintiff contracting certain types of cancer in the future.

If the judge gives his OK next month, Bern’s law firm would send letters to the plaintiffs to tell them what money they are eligible for. “The payments could range from thousands of dollars to nearly $2 million for clients,” Bern said last week. To make a claim, plaintiffs would have to submit proof they were present and participated in the post-9/11 efforts.

They also will have to present specific medical documentation, including a diagnosis confirming their illness or injury. After the 9/11 attacks, individuals who worked or volunteered in the rescue, recovery and debris-removal project have received free medical care funded by New York City and the federal government. Participating in the settlement would not affect access to that care.

CNN’s Hussein Saddique in New York contributed to this report.

(CNN) — Rep. Dennis Kucinich said Wednesday that he will continue to work toward a single-payer program, despite his decision to reverse course and support President Obama’s health care plan.

“This was a detour,” the Ohio Democrat told CNN’s “Larry King Live.”

“I’ll work with the president in getting this bill passed and the president has committed to working with me to seeing further health care reforms after this bill is out of the way.”

Kucinich has been a strong proponent of what he calls “Medicare for all,” but said he was willing to settle for something short of that — at least in the short term.

“I’m not a ‘my-way-or-the-highway’ kind of guy,” he said. “This is a first step. By no means is this bill the bill that I wanted. I’ve been highly critical of it, and I don’t take back anything I said.”

He predicted that if the plan fails, the ramifications will reverberate for years.

“I doubt that this president or any president in the near future or any Congress in the near future will want to touch anything remotely related to health care.”

Kucinich had previously characterized the bill, which cleared the Senate in December, as little more than a boondoggle for private insurers. He was publicly lobbied for his vote by Obama during the president’s visit this week to Kucinich’s congressional district in Ohio. He told reporters he’s had four meetings with Obama to discuss the bill.

Kucinich’s decision to change his vote is a good sign, Obama told reporters in the Oval Office. “I told him ‘Thank you.’ “

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said she thought Kucinich’s switch would make a difference with a large number of liberal activists.

“He’s been a supporter of health care for all Americans for a long time,” she said. “He has a constituency, and many of those people still don’t understand why there isn’t a public [option].”

Kucinich predicted that the House vote, which could come this weekend, would be close.

The Democrats’ plan is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans. The Senate bill also would reduce federal deficits by about $118 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Top Republicans contend the plan amounts to an ill-conceived government takeover of the country’s health care system, an assertion Kucinich disputed, given that it maintains the private insurance system.

Republicans have also said the plan would do little to slow spiraling medical costs. They also argue it would lead to higher premiums and taxes for middle-class families while resulting in deep Medicare cuts.

Public opinion polls indicate a majority of Americans have turned against the administration’s health plan, though individual elements of the proposal remain widely popular.

(CNN) — President Obama’s annual physical in February included blood pressure, cholesterol, and heart rate checks — tests familiar to any of us who receives a regular check-up.

But take a close look at the report from his personal physician, Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, and you’ll see the president received two top-of-the-line, high-tech tests, CT scans of his colon and his coronary arteries, you most likely won’t be getting when you show up at your doctor’s office this year.

If the head of the free world gets these tests, should you? The answer depends on whom you ask. Can you afford these tests? That depends on how much money you have in the bank. Neither of these tests is part of a standard annual physical, so your insurance company likely probably won’t pay for them.

Dr. Tyler Cooper in Dallas, Texas, applauds Obama’s aggressive use of high-tech tests, and thinks more Americans should consider doing the same.

“We think people should be proactive about their health,” says Cooper, a staff physician at the Cooper Clinic, one of several clinics in the United States offering so-called “executive physicals,” extensive check-ups that include a large number of blood tests and scans.

“These tests give our physicians an in-depth, detailed understanding of a patient’s condition,” he added.

Cooper says in his clinic, scans like the ones Obama received have caught heart disease and colon cancer long before they would have been detected without the scans.

“There’s no question — these tests save lives,” he says.

But other physicians say you shouldn’t follow the president’s example.

“If someone told me they wanted these tests, I’d tell them they were nuts,” says Rank, medical director of the Health Partners Medical Group in Minneapolis. “Americans have this concept that when it comes to healthcare, more is better, and it’s just not true.”

Rank says there’s no evidence that receiving a CT scan of your colon, also known as a “virtual colonoscopy,” is any better than a traditional colonoscopy, which doesn’t use radiation to take images of your colon.

He says there’s also no evidence that getting regular scans of the coronary arteries helps prevent heart attacks.

“Usually you don’t do that scan preventatively. You only do it when someone’s having chest pain,” he says.

Both scans, he says, increase your exposure to radiation and cost money. Plus, he says sometimes these CT scans indicate something is wrong when really everything is just fine, necessitating the need for further testing and causing weeks of unnecessary concern.

“I worry about the message the president is sending by getting these tests,” he says.

But the president’s doctors were doing what they thought was in the best interest of their patient, according to a statement provided to CNN by White House spokesman Reid Cherlin in consultation with the president’s medical team.

“The White House Physician provides no politics, no policy, just trusted medical advice,” Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, chief White House physician, wrote in the statement provided by Cherlin. “The president, as a patient, trusts his personal doctor’s medical advice geared toward him as an individual.”

If you want the tests such as the ones Obama received as part of your annual physical, first consider this: Health groups, such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, don’t recommend them for routine use in otherwise healthy people.

But if you still want them, you can get them for a price. Facilities such as the Cooper Clinic, Scripps Health in San Diego, and the Cleveland Clinic offer “executive physicals” for $2,000 to $3,000 depending on the extent of the exam.

All three clinics offer the coronary artery scan Obama received, plus many other tests. Here’s a list of five tests offered in “executive physicals,” with the pros and cons of each test. Depending on the clinic, some of these tests are included in the set price, while others can cost up to several hundred dollars extra.

1. “Virtual” colonoscopy

What it is: A CT scan. This test provides a detailed picture of your colon.

Pros and cons: There’s no need to insert a scope into the rectum, so you don’t have to be sedated. If doctors do find a polyp, you’ll have to have a separate procedure to have it removed. The scan exposes you to radiation, and repeated scans over time can increase your risk of cancer.

2. CT scan of the coronary arteries

What it is: This scan checks for calcium in the walls of the arteries that supply your heart with blood. Calcium in the artery walls could mean you have clogged arteries, a leading cause of heart attacks.

Pros and cons: The test is noninvasive, and some doctors believe that when combined with other health information, your calcium “score” can help determine your risk of having a heart attack. The test exposes you to radiation.

3. Chest X-ray

What it is: A chest x-ray reveals several conditions, including fluid in your lungs enlargement of your heart, pneumonia, emphysema and cancer.

Pros and cons: While it can reveal the presence of these conditions, chest X-rays expose you to radiation, albeit at very low doses. Also, an X-ray may yield a “false positive,” meaning that it may show something is wrong when in reality you’re fine. You’ll have to undergo additional testing, which may cause you extra costs and unnecessary worry while you await the results.

4. Stress Test

What it is: Doctors monitor your heart rhythm, blood pressure, and breathing while you walk on a treadmill or ride a stationary bike.

Pros and cons: If you’re having problems such as shortness of breath or a racing heartbeat, a stress test can help determine whether they’re related to a heart problem. Complications, such as dizziness and fainting, are rare.

5. Full Body Scan

What it is: These scans take pictures of the whole body in “slices,” giving doctors a detailed look inside the body.

Pros and cons: The scan can look for signs of certain problems, such as heart disease and cancer. You’re exposed to radiation, and if something abnormal is found, you might need further testing, which would carry additional risks — and the end result might be that the full body scan was in error and nothing was wrong in the first place.

CNN’s John Bonifield contributed to this report.