And Baucus’s quest for the glory might, according to the Times, catch the incoming president and his staff off guard.

Baucus announced his proposal in a sweeping 98-page document that, one would assume, was not written at the last minute, but had been written, edited and printed in time for the announcement of last week’s election results.

But what of Sen. Ten Kennedy, whose op-ed piece in the Washington Post this weekend led some to believe that he would be the first to introduce legislation? Was he caught off guard and is now seething, or will he be content to just sit on the sidelines and allow others to own the legacy of creating another federal bureaucracy? Baucus said that he was waiting to speak with other lawmakersabout a bill that he will likely introduce, and invoked the name of the iconic Massachusetts senator, so a safe bet would be that any legislation might be named the Baucus-Kennedy Health Care Reform Act of 2009.

According to the Times article, Baucus goes further than Obama was willing when he announced that he wants everyone to buy health insurance and that he would fine large employers that didn’t offer it to employees. Obama had changed his stance until, at the end of the campaign, his stance was one against a mandate for coverage for all (children only), and said he didn’t favor fines for employers that didn’t offer coverage (he was only in favor of fines for parents who didn’t acquire coverage for their children).

Hmmm, but didn’t Baucus and Obama meet, cheerily in fact, on the same day that Baucus announced his proposal? You bet. Ceci Connolly wrote in her Washington Post blogthat the two “had nothing but happy talk on their ability to revamp” the nation’s healthcare system.

Does this mean that Obama will sign Baucus’s legislation, if it passes, thereby reneging on his earlier campaign promises? Will Obama say that he has too much on his plate with the financial crisis and will allow Congress instead to revamp health care?

And what about the financial crisis? Where will the money come from for such a massive undertaking? In an Associated Press article, the same question is asked, with no answer. In announcing the plan, Baucus has conceded that he doesn’t know how it will be paid for, only that it will require a massive, up-front investment. Of course, everyone knows who will pay for it: U.S. business owners, workers and taxpayers.

That being said, a safe bet would be that Ted Kennedy is going to try to introduce legislation designed to overhaul the U.S. health care system — and enact universal care — before a new President Barack Obama has the chance.

Writing in the Washington Post, Kennedy went so far as to entitle his opinion piece, “Health Care Can’t Wait.” Doesn’t sound to me like he is going to wait for anyone.

No one wishes ill will upon Mr. Kennedy. But he is physically sick, and likely facing his own mortality. So the larger-than-life senator probably wants to leave a legacy. And since President Obama will be busy with the nation’s economic woes, as many Democrats argue, the new leader won’t have time to make changes to health care. Plus, they state it will be too costly in a time of economic crisis.

So Kennedy will step in and pressure Obama to see things his way. It is the only way that Kennedy, who never made it to the main desk in the Oval Office, will go down in history, at least not while Obama is taking all the limelight.

President-elect Obama might think that his biggest problem will be the economy, or the war in Iraq, or Kim Jung Il in North Korea, but he is mistaken.

He has a pitbull ready to pounce, one named Ted “the timid” Kennedy.

Continually lowering premiums have made it a money pit for federal funds, and the continual misuse by some homeowners is nearly criminal (and encouraged by the fed).

To make matters worse, some in Washington actually think that people who don’t have the insurance should be allowed to retroactively acquire the coverage, following a flood.

How crazy is that?

Michael Crowley, writing in Reader’s Digest, does an excellent job, in a short article, of exposing just how ridiculous this plan has become.

Shareholders fear the insurers will be forced to sell these products to generate the capital needed to meet regulatory requirements. With market declines, Fitch recently said capital needed to support the variable annuity industry had increased by as much as $15 billion this year.

What remains unclear, according to the article, is how much of a role VAs play in the companies’ financials and how they will manage the risks associated with these products in a new economic climate.

Yet another impact of the sagging economy on the insurance industry.

Consider this: House Democrats are actually floating the idea of dismantling the current private pension fund known as the 401(k)  and replacing it with a new, federal retirement plan. And with possible control of both branches of government, it could happen.

House Democrats recently heard testimony from Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research in New York. Ms. Ghilarducci is proposing that the U.S. do away with the private 401(k) plan, and instead force Americans to invest in a government bond program with guaranteed returns. Can anyone say, “The Social Security system is a huge success with a bright future, and we should replicate it or expand it and force it upon Americans?”

Lest anyone call me a partisan, read this explanation of the plan from ABC News, certainly not “in the tank” for Republicans.

Jim McDermott, the Democrat from Washington who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, thinks the idea of taking away Americans’ private pension funds is a nifty idea. He says that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should start to think about whether or not Americans should continue to invest in 401(k)s. In other words, don’t worry, Congress will take care of your retirement for you, because, after all, you are too stupid to do it for yourself.

James Pethokoukis, a money and investment editor at U.S. News & World Report, thinks the plan is a bad idea, with good reason.

Perhaps the fed should look at how the states are dealing with their own pension systems before they implement one that will affect every American. In Maryland, for example, the state has discovered that it is underfunding the pension system for state workers, placing it in dire straits. And we want the federal government to do the same for the rest of us?

I think it is a terrible idea that has the potential to gain ground. And with Sen. Barack Obama resolutely telling Americans that our best course of action is to “spread the wealth,” I have no doubt that he will also find it fiscally responsible to tell us how he will permit us to save for our retirement. And with a Democrat Congress backing him up, well, he will pretty much have the power to tell us to put up and shut up.

The numbers varied by as much as a decade, with 14 years for McCain being the longest projected lifespan for the Arizona senator, who is now 72 years old. Bialik in his Numbers column describes the errors and fallacies of each mainstream life expectancy calculator.

“Just don’t expect the results to be accurate,” Bialik wrote. “I tried out a handful of these life-expectancy calculators and got a range spanning 14 years — longer than Franklin Roosevelt’s time in the White House. Steven Weisbart, vice president and chief economist of the Insurance Information Institute, has also tried them and gotten a spread of a decade.”

Bialik adds a quote from Weisbart: “The best you could do would be to get a cloud of outcomes.”

While insurance companies have far more sophisticated calculators and criteria for determining life expectancy for their policyholders, Bialik’s report does offer insight into what consumers visiting a life agent may think they know or what they may expect.

Knowing and responding to these consumer understandings of life expectancy - even if they are wrong — can play a huge role in turning these “informed” people into life-long — no matter how long that turns out to be –- clients.

Both plans have merits, and both will impact the insurance industry differently, depending on where your interests lie.

Regardless of which candidate wins, the future of health care and insurance in the U.S. is outlined in the article. Which plan (candidate) do you think will win? Write your comments below.

But I do know one thing for certain: In the final debate between the two presidential candidates, Obama looked directly into the camera and told Americans a big, bald-faced lie.

In that debate, both addressed “Joe the Plumber,” Joe Wurzelbacher, from Ohio. Wurzelbacher confronted Obama at a campaign event and said that based on the senator’s proposal to raise taxes on workers and businesses that earn $250,000 or more, he would not be able to buy a plumbing company that he worked for, thus denying him the opportunity to hire employees. In the debate, Sen. McCain asked Sen. Obama how much small business owners would be “fined” if they couldn’t afford — or simply chose not to — offer health insurance to their employees, which is part of the Obama plan.

Sen. Obama looked straight into the camera, made a circle with two fingers, and answered, “Zero.

So how does Sen. Obama envision enforcing a law requiring employers to offer coverage? By asking nicely? Doubtful. According to his campaign website, he will require employers to pay for health insurance for their employers. (see the 5th question and the entire third and fourth pages in this link to his site.)

In order to enforce such a mandatory law, Obama certainly has the intention to impose a fine. But don’t take my word for it, how about Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor? Vietor told the Wall Street Journal that it is not a fine, but a “penalty.” However, Vietor said that the penalty is not crucial to the Obama plan’s success, so it was not worthy of debate. In fact, Obama officials have said that they won’t even discuss the “penalty” until after the election on Nov. 4.

Communities place stop signs to force people to stop. If people don’t, they are fined. If you don’t pay your taxes on time, you will be fined and possibly face jail. According to Sen. Obama, new laws will be enacted to require employers to pay for health insurance, and if they don’t, nothing will happen to them. Sure, and I have some swampland for sale.

The Baltimore Sun has a unique way to describe the fine/penalty: Simply call it a tax! Americans are so used to the term that the paper is hoping that it will go unnoticed.

Not content to lie about a fine (penalty, tax, whatever you want to call it) to employers, Obama has also deftly danced around the fines that would be imposed on parents who do not buy health insurance for their children. Perhaps he would have us believe that he would send them a nasty note, or smack them on the back of the hand the way school teachers used to in generations past.

Most press would have us forget this little exchange: During the primaries, Sen. Hillary Clinton repeatedly brought the subject of his fine to the forefront, but Sen. Obama kept denying any fines in his plan. But he later relented when pressed by reporters, and eventually said, ”If they don’t have health care, we will work with the parents to make sure that it’s provided, and it would be mandatory,” according to an article in the Des Moines (Iowa) Register. “Parents will not have an option. And I would fine parents if for some reason they refused.”

Thanks for clearing that up for me, Sen. Obama.

The winners, culled from all 465,000 pets insured by Veterinary Pet Insurance, are (my analysis in parentheses):

Dogs:

10. Spatula (no clue)
9. Admiral Toot (too easy)
8. Sophie Touch & Pee (try calling that out at 11 p.m. when you want your dog to come inside)
7. Scuddles Unterfuss (why didn’t they just randomly hit their keyboard for a name?)
6. Peanut Wigglebutt (at least it rhymes)
5. Meatwad (I think my gym teacher called me that in eighth grade)
4. Low Jack (that’s funny)
3. Rafikikadiki (too bad there’s no testing for owners getting a dog license)
2. Sirius Lee Handsome (too astronomical and an unfortunate promoting of the satellite radio company)
1. Rush Limbark (name on loan from God, no doubt)

Cats
10. Toot Uncommon (weak)
9. Rosie Posie Prozac (TMI)
8. Sparklemonkey (more like a band name and a bad one at that!)
7. 80 Bucks (why not 70 or 90)
6. Miss Fuzzbutt (using courtesy titles with pets is crazy)
5. Snoop Kitty Kitty (I almost chuckled)
4. Buddah Pest (c’mon, “siriusly”)
3. Optimus Prrrime (Latin or fake Latin just doesn’t work)
2. Sir Lix-a lot (true, but courtesy title still bothers me)
1. Edward Scissorpaws (Johnny Depp is often lost so I appreciate the effort to remind people of a great, great movie and a greater actor.)

The first one (titled “A Short Course in Brain Surgery”) is about five minutes long and is anecdotal, but speaks volumes.

The second one is about 25 minutes and shows what Canadians really think about their country’s form of socialized medicine.

An interesting footnote to the first video deals with a medical care broker — an interesting industry that has cropped up in Canada, where brokers actually search in other countries for basic medical care that Canadians cannot obtain in their own country. The medical care broker is worried that if the U.S. adopts single-payer health, he will have no where to send Canadians for quality and timely health care.