Insurance Information | All About Insurance Online

Editor’s note: Watch “AC360°” tonight at 10 ET as CNN’s Drew Griffin investigates whether BP is trying to hide risks to cleanup workers.

Anchorage, Alaska (CNN) — Two decades ago, Roy Dalthorp helped clean up the rocky shores of Prince William Sound after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, producing what was then the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

Today, with that record surpassed by the 11-week-old disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Dalthorp struggles to breathe. He coughs, and his failing eyes sometimes tear up uncontrollably.

Dalthorp told CNN that he was “slowly poisoned” during the Alaska cleanup effort — and he says some of those now working to clean up the BP spill off Louisiana and neighboring states are risking the same fate.

BP says it is working with federal health and environmental regulators to make sure cleanup workers are protected from the hazards of the Gulf spill. But observers like Rikki Ott, an environmental activist who studied the Exxon Valdez spill, said cleanup workers in the Gulf are showing “the exact identical symptoms down here that we had 21 years ago.”

Dalthorp says his troubles started when the then-out-of-work oil worker joined the Exxon Valdez cleanup effort. For six weeks, he lived and worked aboard a ship that ran boilers to heat sea water. The 120- to 140-degree water was used to blast crude off the shoreline, and it left plumes of oily-smelling steam in the surrounding air.

“I had no choices, because I was behind on my house payments, and no health insurance,” he said.

Soon he began to cough. Teams from the Environmental Protection Agency were monitoring the cleanup, but “nobody ever checked with us,” Dalthorp said.

Tanker owner Exxon paid to study the effects of the spill on nearly every creature that came into contact with the 11 million gallons that were dumped into Prince William Sound — except people.

“Clams and mussels, to fish and otters, to ducks and eagles, and even deer and bears,” said Anchorage lawyer Dennis Mestas, who represented another worker who was involved in the cleanup. “But they never studied what this oil was doing to the workers — to the human beings in Prince William Sound.”

Mestas warns history may be repeating itself thousands of miles away in the Gulf of Mexico, with evidence of workers getting sick, and their medical records being controlled by BP.

Dalthorp never filed a workers compensation claim or had a doctor determine the cause of his illness. But Mestas said the man he represented — Gary Stubblefield, who he said “still struggles for each breath” as a result of the cleanup — sued Exxon over his illness. The oil company settled for a reported $2 million, without admitting any blame, after Mestas went to an Exxon office in Houston, Texas, and viewed medical records of cleanup workers.

Exxon had asked the court to keep those records under seal to protect the workers’ privacy. But Mestas said the company was forced to let him view summaries of the health records of 11,000 cleanup workers, and found that 6,722 of them had gotten sick.

In a statement issued to CNN, Exxon — now ExxonMobil — said it could not confirm that number. The workers hired for the cleanup “tended to be transient, temporary workers, making any medical follow-up incredibly difficult,” it said. And it noted that out of roughly 50,000 workers hired for the effort, “there were no adverse judgments rendered against the company.”

“After 20 years, there is no evidence suggesting that either cleanup workers or the residents of the communities affected by the Valdez spill have had any adverse health effects as a result of the spill or its cleanup,” the company said.

The issue has drawn the attention of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has been holding hearings on the Gulf disaster. On July 1, the committee asked ExxonMobil to turn over all records related to the health of workers who took part in the Alaskan cleanup. The company says it is reviewing the request.

At the time, the government and the company called those illnesses the “Exxon crud,” a flu or cold that Exxon was not required to report to federal health officials. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health agreed, but Mestas said the agency “never looked at any medical records,” which were controlled by Exxon.

“The only epidemiology was that there were a few head colds that they could identify, and NIOSH didn’t have any of the records,” he said.

ExxonMobil told CNN that the institute had “full access to Exxon’s records” during its study.

Since the Gulf spill erupted in April, CNN has been receiving reports of fishermen hired to take part in the cleanup effort developing upper respiratory illnesses, nausea and vomiting.

Louisiana’s state health department reported 128 cleanup workers believed to have been sickened by exposure to oil by the end of June, with symptoms like dizziness, nausea and breathing issues. On a video provided to CNN by a state health official, one hospitalized fisherman says that “a lot of the other guys” had the same complaints.

In a statement to CNN issued Wednesday, citing state figures, BP said 21 people had “short hospitalizations.”

“Most workers reported having had symptoms that cleared up quickly resulting from exposures attributed to a variety of chemicals,” the company said. But it said that so far, air testing conducted by the EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have not found “a single reading above OSHA regulations to date.” And the company says there is no need to issue respirators to the cleanup workers based on those results.

BP says a database of injury and illness data is shared daily with state and federal health officials. It has 25 first-aid stations in the field and a clinic in Venice, Louisiana, that is run by federal officials.

But Ott, a marine biologist who studied the effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, says the symptoms being reported in the Gulf states are the same ones that hit workers in Alaska. And just like then, people with their backs against the wall financially are flocking to the take jobs with the cleanup.

“I’m feeling like BP is forcing them into this situation where BP holds all the cards, and BP is letting these workers get sick,” Ott said.

CNN’s Scott Bronstein and Jessi Joseph contributed to this report.

Editor’s note: Watch “AC360°” tonight at 10 ET as CNN’s Drew Griffin investigates whether BP is trying to hide risks to cleanup workers.

Anchorage, Alaska (CNN) — Two decades ago, Roy Dalthorp helped clean up the rocky shores of Prince William Sound after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, producing what was then the largest oil spill in U.S. history.

Today, with that record surpassed by the 11-week-old disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Dalthorp struggles to breathe. He coughs, and his failing eyes sometimes tear up uncontrollably.

Dalthorp told CNN that he was “slowly poisoned” during the Alaska cleanup effort — and he says some of those now working to clean up the BP spill off Louisiana and neighboring states are risking the same fate.

BP says it is working with federal health and environmental regulators to make sure cleanup workers are protected from the hazards of the Gulf spill. But observers like Rikki Ott, an environmental activist who studied the Exxon Valdez spill, said cleanup workers in the Gulf are showing “the exact identical symptoms down here that we had 21 years ago.”

Dalthorp says his troubles started when the then-out-of-work oil worker joined the Exxon Valdez cleanup effort. For six weeks, he lived and worked aboard a ship that ran boilers to heat sea water. The 120- to 140-degree water was used to blast crude off the shoreline, and it left plumes of oily-smelling steam in the surrounding air.

“I had no choices, because I was behind on my house payments, and no health insurance,” he said.

Soon he began to cough. Teams from the Environmental Protection Agency were monitoring the cleanup, but “nobody ever checked with us,” Dalthorp said.

Tanker owner Exxon paid to study the effects of the spill on nearly every creature that came into contact with the 11 million gallons that were dumped into Prince William Sound — except people.

“Clams and mussels, to fish and otters, to ducks and eagles, and even deer and bears,” said Anchorage lawyer Dennis Mestas, who represented another worker who was involved in the cleanup. “But they never studied what this oil was doing to the workers — to the human beings in Prince William Sound.”

Mestas warns history may be repeating itself thousands of miles away in the Gulf of Mexico, with evidence of workers getting sick, and their medical records being controlled by BP.

Dalthorp never filed a workers compensation claim or had a doctor determine the cause of his illness. But Mestas said the man he represented — Gary Stubblefield, who he said “still struggles for each breath” as a result of the cleanup — sued Exxon over his illness. The oil company settled for a reported $2 million, without admitting any blame, after Mestas went to an Exxon office in Houston, Texas, and viewed medical records of cleanup workers.

Exxon had asked the court to keep those records under seal to protect the workers’ privacy. But Mestas said the company was forced to let him view summaries of the health records of 11,000 cleanup workers, and found that 6,722 of them had gotten sick.

In a statement issued to CNN, Exxon — now ExxonMobil — said it could not confirm that number. The workers hired for the cleanup “tended to be transient, temporary workers, making any medical follow-up incredibly difficult,” it said. And it noted that out of roughly 50,000 workers hired for the effort, “there were no adverse judgments rendered against the company.”

“After 20 years, there is no evidence suggesting that either cleanup workers or the residents of the communities affected by the Valdez spill have had any adverse health effects as a result of the spill or its cleanup,” the company said.

The issue has drawn the attention of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has been holding hearings on the Gulf disaster. On July 1, the committee asked ExxonMobil to turn over all records related to the health of workers who took part in the Alaskan cleanup. The company says it is reviewing the request.

At the time, the government and the company called those illnesses the “Exxon crud,” a flu or cold that Exxon was not required to report to federal health officials. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health agreed, but Mestas said the agency “never looked at any medical records,” which were controlled by Exxon.

“The only epidemiology was that there were a few head colds that they could identify, and NIOSH didn’t have any of the records,” he said.

ExxonMobil told CNN that the institute had “full access to Exxon’s records” during its study.

Since the Gulf spill erupted in April, CNN has been receiving reports of fishermen hired to take part in the cleanup effort developing upper respiratory illnesses, nausea and vomiting.

Louisiana’s state health department reported 128 cleanup workers believed to have been sickened by exposure to oil by the end of June, with symptoms like dizziness, nausea and breathing issues. On a video provided to CNN by a state health official, one hospitalized fisherman says that “a lot of the other guys” had the same complaints.

In a statement to CNN issued Wednesday, citing state figures, BP said 21 people had “short hospitalizations.”

“Most workers reported having had symptoms that cleared up quickly resulting from exposures attributed to a variety of chemicals,” the company said. But it said that so far, air testing conducted by the EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration have not found “a single reading above OSHA regulations to date.” And the company says there is no need to issue respirators to the cleanup workers based on those results.

BP says a database of injury and illness data is shared daily with state and federal health officials. It has 25 first-aid stations in the field and a clinic in Venice, Louisiana, that is run by federal officials.

But Ott, a marine biologist who studied the effects of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, says the symptoms being reported in the Gulf states are the same ones that hit workers in Alaska. And just like then, people with their backs against the wall financially are flocking to the take jobs with the cleanup.

“I’m feeling like BP is forcing them into this situation where BP holds all the cards, and BP is letting these workers get sick,” Ott said.

CNN’s Scott Bronstein and Jessi Joseph contributed to this report.

Washington (CNN) — The Department of Health and Human Services rolls out a new program Thursday to assist Americans who have unable to get health insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan will provide coverage to as many as 350,000 individuals. It will bridge the coverage gap until the Affordable Care Act goes into effect in 2014.

“For too long, Americans with pre-existing conditions have been locked out of our health insurance market, ” said Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Today, the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan gives them a new option — the same insurance coverage as a healthy individual if they’ve been uninsured for at least six months because of a medical condition. This program will provide people the help they need as the nation transitions to a more competitive and fair marketplace in 2014.”

To be eligible, patients must have been denied insurance by a private insurance company because of a pre-existing condition, been uninsured for at least 6 months, and must be a U.S. citizen or a legal resident.

Jay Angoff, director of the Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the new plan will fill critical gaps and provide immediate relief for families and small businesses.

“Health coverage for Americans with pre-existing conditions has historically been unobtainable or failed to cover the very conditions for which they need medical care,” Angoff said. “The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan is designed to address these challenges by offering comprehensive coverage at a reasonable cost.”

In 21 states, the federal government will run the program. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia will run their own plans.

They will be run much like the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). States will have to meet basic requirements but will have flexibility to run their program as they see fit.

States where HHS runs the program will share the same plan structure. Cost and benefits will vary by state, premiums could cost from $140 to $900 per month. Age will also be a factor — in most states younger individuals will pay less than those 60 to 64 years old.

The plan will cover a wide range of benefits, both primary and specialty care, hospitalization and prescription drugs. Eligibility is not based on income.

In states where HHS runs the program, enrollment will begin Thursday. States running their own plans are expected to begin enrollment by the end of the summer. People who get their applications in by July 15 can expect coverage to begin August 10.

Consumers looking for information about the plan, health coverage options and where to apply in their state can go to the new HHS website at www.HealthCare.gov.

Editor’s note: Natasha Altamirano is manager of media relations for the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and educational organization that monitors fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels.

Washington (CNN) — Put away those plastic mini-goggles and grab your favorite tube of self-tanner. The first new tax to fund health care reform goes into effect Thursday — a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.

The tanning industry is just the latest victim of government paternalism, putting it in the same category as cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, sodas, trans fats, junk food and other targets of so-called “sin taxes.”

Desperate for revenue and lacking the guts to curtail big special-interest tax breaks such as the employer-provided health insurance exclusion or the mortgage interest deduction, congressional leaders and the president have singled out a politically vulnerable target. Kind of like a pride of lions singling out the weakest wildebeest.

Similarly, the prey in the health care debate was a moving target. Before it was tanning, it was botox (which conveniently lent itself to many a “botax” newspaper headline and was successfully opposed by the drug’s maker and by plastic surgeons).

The health risks of indoor tanning are often cited as a justification for taxing it, but most of the burden of any related health costs falls on the individual rather than the public at large. Those in favor of a tanning tax (or other “sin taxes” such as those on cigarettes and soda) are seemingly arguing in favor of government intervention into people’s individual choices regarding their bodies, as if people don’t know tanning or smoking or eating fatty foods is bad for them and they need the government to step in and discourage it.

The tanning tax is projected to raise just $2.7 billion over 10 years, according to Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, a negligible amount compared with the reform’s $940 billion, 10-year price tag.

Cuts to Medicare and an increased Medicare tax on high-income taxpayers are the two primary ways the government is planning to pay for health care reform — with the cuts amounting to $416.5 billion and the new Medicare tax bringing in $210 billion.

Of course, one industry’s sin tax is another’s salvation. And what you can’t get from a bed, you can get from a bottle.

Even Snooki of MTV’s “Jersey Shore” has given up tanning in favor of self-tanning spray because of the new tax.

A preview of the show’s second season shows Snooki, one of several cast members who previously made indoor tanning part of their regular beauty regimen, declaring, post-spray-tan session, “I don’t go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning. He did that because of us. McCain would never put a 10 percent tax on tanning. Because he’s pale and he’d probably want to be tan.”

The clip, which was shown at the MTV Movie Awards in June, prompted the following response from Sen. John McCain, who has suffered from skin cancer, on Twitter: “@Snooki u r right, I would never tax your tanning bed! Pres Obama’s tax/spend policy is quite The Situation. but I do rec wearing sunscreen!”

Jokes aside, the tax will hurt small salons — 18,000 nationwide — and most of these small businesses are owned by women, according to a trade association.

The association also notes that health clubs that offer indoor tanning services are exempt from the tax, which underscores one of the main problems about sin taxes: that government shouldn’t be in the business of picking marketplace winners and losers.

Sound tax policy dictates that all industries should be treated equally under the tax code rather than using the Internal Revenue Service to favor certain goods and behaviors and punish others. If indoor tanning services are to be taxed, health clubs shouldn’t be given a special exemption.

In fact, we can go a step further and insist that if indoor tanning services are to be taxed, all consumer services — including legal services, medical services and the like — should be taxed as well.

And even with someone as popular as Snooki as an unofficial spokeswoman (the show’s season one finale netted 4.8 million viewers), the tanning industry’s lobby isn’t as strong as those representing medical, legal and other services.

So starting Thursday, if spray tanning isn’t for you, there’s always good, old-fashioned sunscreen and some outdoor time.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Natasha Altamirano.