Depending on your body type, your health insurance, your self-esteem, and your possible health complications, weight loss that a successful bariatric procedure grants can have hidden costs attached. It is a wonderful thing to shed pounds quickly and more easily than with diet and exercise alone, but your body may not always adjust at the same pace – hanging jowls, deflated, pendulous breasts, a flattened, loose tummy, and other excess skin are all associated with speedy weight loss. Many post-op patients require additional cosmetic surgery to remove hanging skin, lift certain areas, tighten loose muscles, or adjust fat deposits. Apart from surgical procedures, patients who have undergone weight loss surgery may require dietary supplements, drug therapy, and even behavior or fitness therapy. There is no saying from patient to patient how many of these extra costs you might incur, and you might not know before surgery. This is not counting the costs of post-operative visits, nutritional shakes, gym memberships, and/or new clothing – which you may be happy and excited to buy, but which still costs money!

Whether or not you are able to get your insurance company to cover any of the costs associated with bariatric surgery depends on your individual situation. If your doctor recommends advises weight loss surgery because he or she feels that your obesity is a direct and immediate threat to your health, then you can ask them to provide your insurance company with a letter of medical necessity to encourage your insurer to cover the procedure. Medical proof that your weight puts you at heightened risk for heart disease and strokes, for example, will improve your chances. In particular, those who fall under the heading of chronic morbid obesity are most likely to be validated for assistance. In addition, if your doctor is able to provide documentation of other failed attempts to control your weight—such as psychological therapy and drug therapy—your case becomes that much stronger. Remember that talking to your surgeon is the best bet for putting a strong case before your insurance company! They may already have set requirements for you to meet before qualifying.

Between 1998 and 2004, the number of bariatric patients has risen eight hundred and four percent. That represents a rise from just over thirteen thousand patients to more than one hundred twenty-one thousand, as per the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Nowadays, there are as many as a quarter million bariatric procedures being performed in America. The vast majority of patients are satisfied and do well managing their weight over the long term, further endorsements for the procedure.

If you are considering bariatric surgery, the first thing to do is to arrange a consult with a reputable surgeon. You should inquire as to the number of procedures your doctor has performed (experienced surgeons may have performed several hundred, or even over a thousand), and where they perform the surgeries. A Bariatric Center for Excellence is a hospital or clinic that has been given a distinction for its skill with an accommodation of bariatric surgeries and patients – having a procedure done at one of these places is ideal. The financial coordinator of your surgeon’s practice will be able to talk with you about what you personally can expect in terms of costs and any applicable insurance coverage. Hopefully at that point in the process you will be a good idea of what your “out the door” figure will be to get the surgery you want and need.

It’s ultimately up to you to determine whether any of the costs associated with weight loss surgery are something that you are willing to pay. Keep in mind that there are costs – both apparent and hidden – associated with obesity as well, and that you will continue to pay these for as long as you keep the excess weight on.

The CFA points to this gap between rich and poor auto insurance customers’ premiums as a major reason why an estimated one-quarter to one-third of all households in this economic category cannot afford auto insurance and therefore don’t carry it, driving illegally. The high costs lead to what the study termed “disparate impacts.” After all, not all cities have the infrastructure for public transportation that can meet the needs of all citizens. Those who can’t afford car insurance and therefore don’t buy a car might be missing out on opportunities – regular employment and other chances to increase their income – that those with more money can easily take advantage of.

The CFA study was co-authored by Stephen Brobeck and J. Robert Hunter, who are slated to bring their findings to a meeting of state insurance commissions next weekend, urging them to address coverage discrepancies. Brobeck and Hunter suggest that one solution to the problem would be for insurers to offer lower premiums to those who have a clean driving history and a record of safety, regardless of income. Brobeck, the executive director of the CFA, cites the fact that, in some areas, responsible low-income drivers are being required to spend upwards of one thousand dollars a year for liability insurance that is no more coverage than what is offered to rich subscribers, and is unfairly priced to boot.

Per the study and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, low-income car owning households pay more than seven hundred dollars in annual premiums and moderate-income families typically pay more than one thousand dollars. There is often no such thing as comparison shopping for lower rates in these families. Much like the deserts of mortgage lenders in low-income urban communities, there may simply be no access to insurance offices for these people who most need it. Take, for instance, Washington DC. Of eighty insurance offices in the district, only three are located in the neighborhoods with the lowest incomes. Over half, on the other hand, are located in high-income areas.

The study indicts insurers with being “well aware that upper-income families are much more likely to own two or three expensive cars, with comprehensive coverages, than are LMI [low-to-middle income] households, who often purchase just minimum liability coverage on an old car.” The study uses an example to illustrate discrimination in insurance policy offerings: a single male from the city of Compton, California (a low-income area), aged under thirty years, who has been licensed for between six to eight years and drives between seventy-six hundred and ten thousand miles per year with just one traffic ticket and one at-fault accident, would be charged between $1,628 and $2,353 for basic liability coverage and between $5,670 and $7,500 for standard coverage including collision and comprehensive. This is per data gleaned from the California Department of Insurance. On the other hand, in at least several states including Arizona, Texas, and Arkansas, and probably in more, some major insurers charge individual consumers lower premiums for standard liability coverage than for minimum liability coverage. It appears that these insurers are discriminating against purchasers of the minimum coverage, who are disproportionately LMI car owners.

Insurers cannot prove that the ZIP code in which drivers live constitutes any particular risk to justify higher insurance prices, or that there is any correlation between geographical location and more accidents or claims. Still, they clearly discriminate against consumers not only on the basis of where they live, but on the basis of occupation, education, and credit rating as well.

It’s believed that some clinics will perform life-saving organ transplants on illegal immigrants, especially when they are young. There is no definitive data on the subject of organ transplants and illegal immigrants, just anecdotal evidence compiled from various reports: such as the story of an undocumented female immigrant who received no less than three liver transplants from UCLA Medical Center before her 21st birthday. On the other hand, it’s a known fact that officials can and do deny transplants to patients due to their immigrant status – although, unlike Navarro, most of these denied transplants come about due to the fact that the would-be transplantees don’t have insurance to pay for the operation.

University of Pennsylvania bioethics professor Arthur Caplan cites this sort of debate as the sort of “ethical gray area” that hospitals loathe. Doctors tend to find themselves in a state of distress over their lack of options in these situations, he says – they come into the situation attempting to help someone out, and find themselves smack in the middle of a firestorm over illegal immigration. On one side of the ring are immigration advocates and humanists who say that immigration status should be of no concern to hospitals, who are tasked with giving health care to those who need it. On the other side are the very outspoken and passionate proponents of stronger border enforcement and immigration law, who argue that more and more illegals could be tempted to jump the border if they know that they could receive life-saving care over here. They are supported in philosophy by fiscal conservatives fighting to contain the skyrocketing costs of healthcare in America.

Navarro, who is thirty-five years old, says that he never thought his survival would come down to his immigration status. He has held private insurance through his job at Berkeley’s Pacific Steel foundry for the past fifteen years. He has worked full time throughout his kidney failure, which started eight years ago. He’d come home from work each day and filter deadly toxins from his blood with the aid of a home dialysis machine. Gradually, however, he became sicker and sicker. Home dialysis is considered to be a short-term solution for kidney failure at best, with life expectancy for those confined to these machines estimated at about six years.

The Navarro family thought that their agony was over when they got a call this past spring that Jesus had reached the top of the UC San Francisco waitlist for a kidney transplant. His wife recalls their happiness at the thought that his health might finally turn around. During Navarro’s very last consultation before the transplant, however, it was discovered that he was an illegal immigrant. UC San Francisco called off the operation. Navarro’s wife, also an illegal immigrant (whose name was withheld in newspaper reports due to this fact), offered her own kidney. She was a match, but officials still said no. It’s not exactly known how Navarro’s immigrant status came to be on the table. Although the hospital will not comment specifically on Navarro’s case, UC San Francisco’s executive director of transplantation, Reece Fawley, said that the hospital’s clinic evaluates all patients for socioeconomic stability preoperatively. Included in that assessment is consideration of candidates’ “adequate and stable insurance coverage,” or other financial stability over the long term that is needed for follow-up care “long after transplant surgery.” Fawley said that immigration status is only one aspect taken into consideration.

Navarro lost his job at the foundry this month, thanks to an immigration audit. He had held the job illicitly, using a fake social security number. At the moment, his private insurance continues as it will for a time. He is trying to extend it. Should he lose it, however, he may end up on Medi-Cal, the state insurance plan. Medi-Cal will foot the seventeen thousand dollar monthly bill for Navarro’s daily dialysis, but it will not cover the cost of the immunosuppressive drugs that ward off organ rejection, which cost twenty thousand dollars annually. That’s a moot point, however, since Medi-Cal won’t pay for organ transplants for illegal immigrants. The hospital won’t perform a transplant without a guarantee that the drugs and accompanying treatment will be paid for, owing to the fact that these subsequent therapies are necessary to ensure that the transplant doesn’t fail.

There are those who believe that the hospital had a bioethical duty to perform the surgery since Navarro wouldn’t be taking a kidney away from another (insured/native) patient if his wife donated the organ, and that he wouldn’t be putting his wife at serious risk by taking one. It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of other organ donation patients who fail to follow through with their post-operative care plan, after all. Santa Clara University bioethics professor Margaret McLean questions why Navarro was denied “the opportunity to comply.” University of Southern California bioethics professor Michael Shapiro takes it a step further and wonders why, if Navarro had the organ – “the critical resource” – the hospital didn’t go ahead and transplant it solely on that basis that it would give him a “serious chance at life.”

On the other hand, there are and always will be detractors in cases like this. Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (whose mission statement is pretty much made evident in its name) argues that hospitals cannot responsibly provide long-term care to illegal immigrants, and that doing so discourages their home nations from developing their own adequate healthcare systems. Dane states the opinion that “you just cannot provide care for illegal aliens without getting into uncompensated care.”

Navarro, for his part, says that his main concern at present is finding another job – not saving his life. He states that he is worried about his family and is taking anti-anxiety pills to sleep, due to all the stress from the transplant situation. The Navarro family claims that they, too, are in a bind waiting for an answer.

Navarro’s situation is a distressing one. I think that even the staunchest anti-illegal-immigration diehards would have a hard time out and out consigning a human to death because of their political position. At the same time, it’s true that making life-saving care available to illegal immigrants could invite a flood of other undocumented individuals to come into the country and potentially leech jobs and benefits from “real” Americans. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, you have to admit that it’s a sticky situation. As a fellow parent, I can’t help but feel heartbroken at the thought of Navarro leaving a young child behind. Also, I feel that the fact that Navarro’s prospective transplant organ belongs to his wife is an important consideration. It’s not as if he’s “taking” an organ from anyone else on the transplant list, after all. Not that these things should matter.

How can firms strive to be more courteous to job applicants – yes, even those that they don’t intend to hire? It’s important to look at the process from the point of view of the applicants. On a recent visit to a forum for unemployed professionals, one whole thread was dedicated to people who had been treated rudely or unprofessionally by certain firms. Here’s the thing to keep in mind: you might be quick to dismiss such a person as a disgruntled jerk who got turned down, but such comments lead to bad press. If you get a reputation as a place that treats applicants like crap, you could very well lose out on applicants that you actually want. Without a doubt, firms that get trashed repeatedly will end up with a reputation.

First of all, make sure that you acknowledge all applicants. This sounds like fundamental common sense and courtesy… but you might be surprised to hear that it doesn’t always happen in the job market. Regardless of how impressed you were, all applicants deserve a “thank you” for applying to your firm. This statement sends a professional, positive message letting them know that you appreciate the time and effort it took them to send their materials over and apply for your firm. You need not spend all sorts of time on this message – it can be a short little note or e-mail. The timeliness of this message is more important that anything else.

Another crucial step of improving your interactions with job seekers is being transparent about the application process. It is courteous and ethical to fill applicants in on the steps of the process (completing an application? sending in letters of reference? being interviewed by several different people ? completing assessment tools, etc.), and what will be expected of them. Keep in mind that you are trying to pick the best applicant, not the one who can find their way through a maze. Being honest about your expectations will help applicants feel more confident and will increase your chances of identifying the people who are right for the positions you are trying to fill.

Be sure to follow up on that last step by always informing applicants about the results of the process. Nothing vexes jobseekers than when employers say they will get back to them and don’t. Let’s face it – it’s pretty rude behavior no matter who’s doing it, and it’s twice as frustrating when you let someone get their hopes up and then fail to follow through. Even an e-mail back to a candidate about the process would be helpful to them, and might be able to help them identify areas of improvement for later opportunities. Don’t shy away from communication; put your money where your mouth is. After all, some companies, such as charities or nonprofits, are happy to take our financial contributions, yet are not nearly as responsive when we apply to them for jobs. All of a sudden, they forgot how to communicate. It makes them look bad.

If you are in a supervisory position at your company, be sure that the hiring staff working under you are well-trained, polite, and professional at all times. Keep in mind that these people will often form new employees’ very first impressions of your company. It’s easy to assume as an employer that you have great recruiters, but it is important to periodically get feedback from applicants. It’s not hyperbole to say that recruiters serve as ambassadors to your firm. I’ve heard many highly qualified job seekers who are excited to work for a firm but get very turned off by recruiters who are not well trained in the art of interviewing, are uninformed about the firm, or treat the applicants with a total lack of respect or professionalism (e.g., not showing up for interviews, not being prepared for interviews, asking illegal questions). You can be one of the best workplaces around, but if highly-qualified applicants are getting a bad feel from their first contact, they are more likely to pursue other opportunities. Yes, even in a down economy. If you want the cream of the crop, make sure that you are willing to cough up the same when it comes to your HR staff or recruiter(s).

Please don’t waste your applicants’ time or abuse their good nature, either. It’s true that, nowadays, people are desperate for a foot in the door and may very well be willing to work for no pay or little pay just to get experience with a particular firm. It’s not that there is anything inherently wrong with this practice; it’s part of the modern-day job search. On the other hand, please just make sure you are not taking advantage of the job seeker. For every inspiring, motivating tale of how about how some go-getter, highly motivated individuals were able to turn these “volunteer” activities into paying jobs, there are several, demoralizing others about how some firms exploited people during these tough times. I’ve also heard examples of how some companies have told an applicant to relocate for a job, but after moving their entire family they were told the job no longer existed. That sort of thing just shouldn’t happen… period. Don’t be the jerk who does it to people.

Here’s the straight dope: professional courtesy is a street that goes both ways. If you are expecting well-mannered, polished applicants that come in ready to sell themselves to you with gusto and aplomb, be ready to woo your applicants in a way that makes them desperate to be accepted! Respect and professionalism are a must from both sides of the job application process, no excuses accepted. Yes, the economy strongly favors employers at present. Big deal – that doesn’t give you license to treat people like dirt, just as job seekers may not act pompous and arrogant in cases when there are a lot more positions than qualified applicants. It is the RIGHT THING TO DO to treat all people with courtesy and kindness, and that applies to job seekers as well. Remember that they are not only your applicants, but also your potential customers.

White House director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling announced a few days ago that a decision on whether to again extend the unemployment extension was “critical to millions of working families and critical to our economy and job growth as well.” The matter at stake is that of the extension of emergency federal unemployment benefits, which allow the jobless to collect benefits for up to ninety-nine weeks, or just shy of two years. But that’s not the only major provision that is hanging in the balance at the end of December. Also at stake are the extension of a payroll tax cut, and the “doc fix,” which would prevent a scheduled pay cut to Medicare physicians that could potentially make it almost impossible for those patients to access convenient medical care.

A few days ago, Republicans in the House of Representatives shot down a two-month extension passed by the Senate by way of refusing to bring the measure to the floor for a vote. Instead, they want to negotiate for a full one-year extension of all three measures, which are set to expire on New Year’s Eve. This sounds good in theory – why keep issuing two month extensions that tie up lawmakers’ time and stress out the people languishing on benefits when you can just get the matter settled for another twelve months – but the practical problem is that the Senate has already gone home for the holidays. There’s also the niggling issue that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already firmly declared that the Senate will be doing no more negotiating on the matter. In a nutshell, as the CNN Money writer said, it’s not looking good.

At stake are federal unemployment benefits. Historically, during major economic downturns, Congress authorizes federal unemployment benefits to augment state jobless benefits, which are normally intended to last up to twenty-six weeks. Obviously, the so-called Great Recession more than qualified. With the national number of people out of work hovering just under the double-digits and analysts estimating that there were seven people vying for every job that becomes available, an extension was surely needed. Lawmakers first approved federal unemployment benefits in June 2008. Since then, Congress has lengthened the federal program and extended the deadline to file until the end of 2011.

Got all that? In a nutshell, here how it works: when someone loses their job, they file for state unemployment benefits. Once the state benefits are exhausted, the federal benefits kick in. Federal benefits currently consist of up to fifty-three weeks of emergency compensation, divided into four tiers, and up to another twenty weeks of extended benefits. With all that put together, unemployed people are eligible for up to ninety-nine weeks of benefits, assuming that all other eligibility conditions are being met. How long a person can actually receive benefits depends not only on their own work history, but on their state’s unemployment rate as well.

At risk are those who have reached the end of their state benefits of federal tier. Unless Congress intervenes to again reach out with an extension to those who have been jobless the longest, people at the end of the line

will not be able to apply for additional benefits. It’s estimated that over seventeen-and-a-half million Americans have collected federal benefits over the past four years. The most recent extension, passed last December, kept seven million people on the rolls. These are those who have been jobless the longest.

To again extend benefits, Congress would have to first vote to approve extending the deadline. They have lengthened or extended them eight times since they were first authorized. When Congress passed a thirteen-month extension last December, it was thought by many to be the last. But since the economy hasn’t recovered as much as hoped and unemployment remains high, advocates say the lifeline must continue. It’s not just a matter of people without jobs having no money, although this certainly is the biggest consideration. It’s also the fact that unemployment dollars are pumped right back into the economy in the form of spending by jobless people, and cutting out these funds will deprive the struggling economy of a large chunk of badly-needed funding.

Congress has estimated that extending federal jobless benefits through the end of 2012 will cost about forty-four billion dollars. In the past four years, Americans lacking jobs have collected some four hundred thirty-four billion dollars in unemployment benefits, of which taxpayers have contributed around one hundred eighty-five billion dollars. The last extension cost fifty-seven billion, but it’s expected that a new one (if approved) won’t cost as much due to the fact that the number of people receiving benefits has steadily decreased as the economy picks up and as people exhaust their benefits or stop looking for work. It should be a slam dunk to approve one more extension at this point… right?

Well, not quite. Although Republicans and Democrats are in (rare) agreement that unemployment benefits ought to be extended, they have butted heads over who should foot the bill for this new extension. Republicans have insisted the cost be covered through steps such as spending reductions, which is fast becoming the party’s standard line for anything new that is possibly going to be added to the budget. Last week, House Republicans passed a one-year extension which included “pay for” provisions to offset the cost opposed by Democrats, including cuts in the cost of the federal workforce and more stringent requirements to get unemployment benefits. The mostly-Democrat Senate, however, passed a two-month extension would have been primarily funded by a provision requiring that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac charge mortgage lenders higher fees. It’s true that particular idea is a measure with bipartisan support, but Republicans objected to the short-term extension and are insisting on negotiating a full one-year plan.

Unless lawmakers stop sparring and get some actual work done on pushing through an extension, some five million unemployed folks will stop getting checks next year, with nearly two million of them exhausting their benefits in January alone. To say that those out-of-work Americans rely on these checks is no understatement. The checks average two hundred ninety-six dollars per week, and are often used for the barest necessities such as rent and groceries to feed families. Without extended benefits, the typical household receiving unemployment checks will see their income fall by a third, according to a report last year from President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. It’s a drop that these working poor households just cannot sustain.

Furthermore, as I already mentioned, jobless benefits also pump billions into the economy since recipients tend to spend their checks quickly. Each dollar of unemployment insurance tends to correspond into about two dollars put right back into the economy, according to some estimates.

The pressure is on, then. While Congress could theoretically go past New Year’s Eve and still opt to extend unemployment, the damage could be well done by the moment after the ball drops in Times Square at midnight on December 31st, since it will take time to get the program up and running again. A lapse could cause some recipients to be without benefits until late February, according to a report issued Wednesday by the National Employment Law Project. That could feasibly mean two months without money for food and shelter, which could not only prove ruinous to some families, but could majorly tax sources set aside for emergency aid as well. Advocates have called Congress to task for being so callous in their delay on getting the matter dealt with.

The waiver was initially set in place in 2010 and was due to meet its sunset this month. Under its provisions, regulations that prohibit the agency from insuring mortgages used to purchase homes that are bought and resold in less than ninety days are suspended. “This extension is intended to accelerate the resale of foreclosed properties in neighborhoods struggling to overcome the possible effects of abandonment and blight,” said Acting Federal Housing Administration Commissioner Carol Galante.

And lest you think otherwise, abandonment and blight are a significant problem right now, especially in low-income neighborhoods. Communities where the average household income falls below the poverty level are especially susceptible to lower property values thanks to foreclosed homes that sit indefinitely and are put upon by criminals, and act as magnets for crime and other social ills. Real estate flippers often rehab these damaged homes before reselling them, improving conditions for neighborhoods. Just the act of selling them alone is a help, never mind fixing them up as well. The FHA, which does not issue mortgages but insures them, is a primary player when it comes to mortgage lending in low-income communities. Many loans in these communities could not be issued without FHA backing. That’s why their approval of flipping is so important if the plan is to work.

Initially, the FHA penalized flippers due to concerns over the practices of predatory flippers. These unethical types were snatching up cheap homes and then quickly reselling the same ones at inflated prices to unsuspecting borrowers who weren’t aware of problems within the home. For flippers to qualify now for the FHA waiver, there are certain requirements to be met. For one, the transaction must be “arms length” with no other relationship between seller and buyer. Furthermore, if the new sale price is twenty or more above the previous selling price, the lender has to document and justify the increase (such as showing proof that significant work went into rehabbing the home) and meet other conditions, such as making sure the home has been inspected by a competent and licensed home inspector.

Ever since the initial FHA waiver took effect in February of last year, the FHA has insured more than forty-two million loans to purchase homes that were being resold within ninety days. These totaled more than seven billion big bucks in mortgage principal, which is no small potatoes in a day and age when calling the housing market moribund is putting it mildly.

I hate to waffle on giving an answer as to whether a reverse mortgage is the right choice for anyone’s grandmother – and that was pretty much what the columnist said as well – but the truth is simply that there are many factors to consider before applying for a reverse mortgage. A reverse mortgage is a loan product available to homeowners aged sixty-two or older who own their home mortgage-free or are nearly mortgage-free. Unlike a home equity line of credit or second mortgage, however, the homeowner does not have to make monthly payments on a second mortgage. The loan is not due back until the home in question is no longer the primary residence of the owner. For seniors who have either completely paid off their home or owe very little on the balance, this kind of loan can provide a means of living comfortably until they pass away or have to leave home, such as to go to a nursing home or to live with family. At the point when the homeowner has to leave the house, the house is sold. The amount of the reverse mortgage is paid first, and the rest goes to the estate of the homeowner. There is always the option of “buying out” the reverse mortgage by paying back the money that has been taken out.

The main benefit of a reverse mortgage is the fact that it allows you to tap into the equity of the property, and that loan doesn’t have to be paid off until you sell the home or move from it permanently. That’s a big deal when an elderly person needs money, as does the grandmother in question. Fans of this type of financial transaction would say that reverse mortgage give the elderly something that they badly need in their golden years: peace of mind. A reverse mortgage provides the mental comfort that comes with financial security. And hey, let’s say that the senior in question has a well-funded retirement… well, reverse mortgages can have other uses as well. Yes, they are primarily used for needs. On the other hand, however, the proceeds can be used for home improvements or a large purchase like a recreational vehicle, boat, or new car. Seniors with no one to inherit their assets might utilize a reverse mortgage to get the maximum benefit of their home ownership in their golden years, since that old saying is true – you can’t take it with you. Why suffer in poverty when you can cash in one of your most significant assets now and help yourself out?

The problem is that reverse mortgage fees can be quite high. If the beloved senior in your life needs a small amount of money for health care expenses, the cost of the reverse mortgage may exceed the health care costs involved. You really have the question whether a reverse mortgage is the best idea, and look at the big picture. What kind of health problems might the proverbial grandma be facing in the future, and does she have the means to deal with them as they arise? Is there the potential of an assisted living facility, skilled nursing at home, or a nursing home in the future? If any of these are a real possibility, then a reverse mortgage might be worthwhile.

There is another option of course, although it might seem less viable in this troubled housing market: if your grandmother is no longer living in the home, you might consider selling the home and using the proceeds to assist your grandmother in all of her living and health care costs. Of course, you would need to find someone to buy the home.

Unlike selling a home, getting a reverse mortgage is fairly simple. It’s actually fairly simple to get a reverse mortgage, despite any credit snags or other issues that you might have going on. Qualifications for a reverse mortgage include being over the age of sixty-two, as I already said, and either owning your home outright or having only a low balance left on the mortgage. The home will need to be your primary residence. Homeowners have to undertake credit counseling before they can receive a reverse mortgage, but credit scores are not taken into account in terms of eligibility for this kind of loan. The flexibility of a reverse mortgage extends beyond just the qualification phase, too. Reverse mortgage lenders can distribute funds in a lump sum or make payments to the senior citizen over time, which is great for those seniors who are using reverse mortgages for different purposes. Need to pay a big medical bill? That lump sum might be a good idea. If you just need a bump on your fixed income to deal with daily expenses, however, then monthly disbursement might be the best option. Those payments over time can be similar to an annuity that pays a monthly amount until the senior citizen dies, sells the home, or no longer uses it as a primary residence. Again, for those with a fixed income, this can be a real blessing.

If someone’s grandmother – or themselves – is seriously considering a reverse mortgage, they should talk to a lender about their choices and the pros and cons. They should consult with someone who, without applying for the loan itself, can try to determine what the costs would be to obtain the reverse mortgage and how much money might be obtained from it. At that point, you will have a better basis by which to judge whether a reverse mortgage is right for your situation.

If it isn’t, then you can move to plan “B.” Usually, that’s the question of selling the home or not. Will this plan work, or will it would be too disruptive to the elderly person in question? In addition to her health issues and financial issues, the columnist advises, you also need to consider your grandma’s personal needs. There are sometimes problems that have no good solution, unfortunately, but hopefully something will work out for all the grandparents out there.

It’s believed that between ten and twelve percent of all used cars have hidden damage of some kind or another. That’s a tough pill to swallow when you take possession of your “new to you” auto, buffed and polished and detailed until it glimmers, and are taking for granted the assumption that you are getting a cherry deal. Most people assume that sellers of used cars use some sort of rigorous quality control rubric to make sure they are offering only the best for sale, but this is not the case. That car might look like a perfect “10,” but there could be a nasty surprise lurking in its past. It’s a sad fact that cars with a history of serious damage like fires, floods, or major accidents, sometimes end up on dealers’ lots. That by itself is not hard to believe, and that wouldn’t be so bad, if the damage were properly disclosed. Too often, however, these vehicles’ shady pasts get bafflingly erased, leaving no evidence for the new owner that anything catastrophic ever took place. Used car dealers are prone to do everything they can to hide damage when possible, and it’s a fact that gets swept under the rug often enough that many people might not even know what to look for. How can you protect yourself from this type of fraud? You simply have to get to know the signs, so that you have a well-honed sense for if you are being fleeced.

First of all, you should know that you cannot judge a book by its cover when it comes to used cars. Think that your new used car is in beautiful exterior shape, yet the price is shockingly low? (No, you aren’t simply getting a great deal.) Did you run a title check on it through Carfax or a similar service, and it came back totally clear? Surprise! That means nothing. In this situation, you may assume that you are getting a steal and happily fork over the cash to buy the car. You would be making a mistake by ignoring these red flags, however. It may seem like you are getting a great deal, but think again. You may, in fact, be setting yourself up for a frustrating and expensive mess.

I read a story online, linked through an Acura owners’ forum I visited, about a gentleman who test-drove and bought a used Acura that he figured was in perfect condition. The gentleman bought the Acura MDX from a “reputable” used dealer, only to find out that the vehicle had a bent rear sub-frame and a cracked engine block. Not only was the car inspected by Mile High Acura, his local Acura dealership, but he also took the time and spent the money to get his hands on a Carfax report, which indicated the car had never been in an accident. Unfortunately, the used car inspection was not performed carefully. For example, he reports, it turns out that when the inspecting mechanic checks “ok” for alignment, they are only inspecting tire wear.

Let’s talk about Carfax for a moment. People assume that Carfax is like a golden ticket to ensuring that the used car they buy is a cherry, and not a lemon. Well, know this: Carfax is far from foolproof. The Acura guy’s mechanic stated that he fixes structural damage all the time and never reports the work to anyone. How many others like him are out there? Plus, the story goes on to reveal, it appears that if an accident does not generate a police report, it will never find its way into the Carfax database. Often accidents occur and for insurance reasons, owners decide to work things out without engaging insurance companies so that they don’t end up with a jacked-up premium.

What’s really scary is the scale on which is this fraud may be occurring. It’s believed that millions of cars every year are either flood-damaged or totaled in an accident on an annual basis, only to be rebuilt or repaired and then blithely labeled with a fraudulently “clean” title. If you happen to be unlucky enough to end up with one of these cars, trucks, or SUVs, you may be in for a major letdown with very little legal recourse. See, these vehicles are legally supposed to be labeled as “flood titled” or “salvage titled,” letting all prospective future owners know that there have been catastrophic damages in the car’s past. It seems to be a lot easier than you’d think to erase these title blemishes, however. In the worst of cases, the vehicle might actually be unreliable and possibly even unsafe, yet it is presented as a perfectly normal car with a clean past. The fact of the matter is that some of these used car dealers are truly so unscrupulous that they just don’t care about your safety or your family’s safety.

One major source of fraud in the used car industry is called “title washing.” A lot of this took place in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, when who-knows-how-many cars were destroyed by flood waters. Title washing hides the history of a vehicle that’s been salvaged. In the used car industry, salvage titles are those assigned to cars that are have been determined to be a complete and total write-off by insurance companies. Another way you might hear this referred to is as “branding” a vehicle. Don’t be mistaken – branding or salvaging a vehicle doesn’t necessarily mean the car can’t be driven. On the other hand, vehicles branded with salvage titles have lower market values and are difficult to sell. Let’s face it – with that amount of damage, even the best-repaired car is prone to problems further down the road. Like a warm bath, title washing washes away a vehicles branding or salvage status, giving it a squeaky clean title that can then be used to sell the car for a much higher value. Once the branding is eliminated, the car’s value goes up and it’s a lot easier to sell. It’s not rocket science to figure out why so many car owners might be motivated to “wash” their titles.

In terms of a dealership, where there may be hundreds of thousands of dollars of difference in the longterm between washed and unwashed titles, title washing allows dealers and individuals to remove salvage branding from car titles to minimize their losses. Titles are washed by transferring a salvaged vehicle to a state that doesn’t recognize the brand, all the better to erase the vehicle’s spotty history for good. When the state issues a new title, it may no longer show that it had been salvaged. If not, the seller will move it from state to state until the branding is gone. When it is, the vehicle’s history will have been “washed” clean. It’s like a form of money laundering, only for vehicles instead. Picture the underworld version of a car wash, if you will.

You would really be amazed at the extent to which crooks will go to wash a vehicle’s title. A damaged car may just be bought and sold through two or three different owners in different states might erase the salvage label off a car’s title. The pros say that shady dealers and individuals might twist these legal loopholes to their advantage. They might buy a salvaged car in Florida, register it in Alabama, then relocate to North Carolina and re-register it. By the time it’s arrived at that last destination, it is no longer considered a salvage vehicle… despite the fact that this process can be executed very quickly and that the car may be in no better shape than it was when it was salvaged. The loser is the person who unsuspectingly buys the car with a flooded past or a sloppily re-welded frame, not knowing that their vehicle is inherently unsafe at this point. The Acura buyer I mentioned earlier found out that not only had his car been involved in an accident that had shattered the windows of both doors, but the frames of said doors were filled with broken glass.

It’s not as if this is a problem that the government hasn’t taken pains to fix, mind you. Back in 1982, the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System was created with the intention of uniting state departments of motor vehicles with an electronic link and obliging auto insurers to disclose information when cars are considered to be totaled. In the insurance industry, this usually comes about if a vehicle has lost at least three-quarters of its value due to damages. The problem is that there are delays in reporting and in updating the system. At present, it can take over three months for a vehicle to be re-titled as a salvage. That gives unscrupulous dealers plenty of time to pull the little trick on the car’s title by either registering it in several different states or by bringing it to states with lenient laws on titling cars.

A proposed law would have put a serious damper in this little game, reducing the turnaround time on updating the system to just seven days. This would have made it almost impossible for crooks to “wash” the title of a damaged car, since car insurers would now be required to electronically notify vehicle-history providers like Carfax of the VIN numbers of totaled vehicles within one week of the incident. Unfortunately, the so-called “”Damaged Vehicle Information Act” made no headway in 2010 or 2011. It remains to be seen whether 2012 will be the year that Congress gets their act together and really takes a stand for the safety of used car buyers.

Let’s not be mistaken, though: crooks always had and always will have a back-up plan waiting in the wings. An alternative to the aforementioned racket is the practice of “title washing,” in which a seller illicitly transfers the vehicle serial number plates from a “clean” (read: undamaged) vehicle to a repaired vehicle, giving thousands of dollars of value back to a car, truck, or SUV that would otherwise have hemorrhaged resale value as a marked “salvage only” vehicle. A lack of uniform state laws regarding the rules for salvaged vehicles is what’s needed, says Loretta Worters of the Insurance Information Institute.

In states like my home of Florida, a tendency towards severe storms has led to the adoption of strict laws regarding how the titles of flood-salvaged vehicles must be labeled. If a car has been flood-damaged and rebuilt, the buyer must be notified through a written disclosure that there was water damage in the car’s past. Unfortunately, not all states are this aggressive. The end result is an unfortunate tendency towards certain states becoming what Worters calls “a dumping ground for undeclared flood vehicles.”

How exactly can you protect yourself as a buyer, if you can’t even trust the title of the car or truck you are buying? Worters’ recommendation is that you thoroughly investigate a vehicle’s comprehensive history and service records with either AutoCheck (which compares state records to a vehicle’s purchase history and service records), CarChex (which recommends mechanics from a nationwide network who will scrutinize used vehicles for harm from water or accidents), Carfax (the ever-popular option, which flags salvage vehicles by matching identification numbers against public DMV records), or The National Insurance Crime Bureau, which is a great resource for finding out whether a specific car has ever been reported stolen or as a salvage vehicle.

Title washing is a dirty trick but consumers can do an AutoCheck or CarFax VIN Check which track a vehicle’s history even if it’s moved to another state. Once a vehicle has been branded and that information is reported to AutoCheck, it remains in their records no matter how many states it’s sold in. The title may no longer indicate severe damage, but a vehicle history report will. “Washing” a title doesn’t wash away computer records. Keep in mind that title washed vehicles are sold by individual sellers as well as car dealers. Don’t assume that because you are purchasing a car on a lot that it’s title hasn’t been washed clean. If you can, obtain a title guarantee from the dealer in writing. This shouldn’t be difficult if the seller is a reputable dealer.

As obnoxious, unethical, and devastating as it can be to find out that your car was a salvage that was covered up, it can be just as bad to willingly take possession of a salvage vehicle that is properly marked. It’s important to keep in mind how egregiously you can get shafted as a driver by ending up with a vehicle that is branded a salvage. True, you could save thousands of dollars… and this can be tempting, if you are short on cash and have some mechanical expertise. Unfortunately, it’s likely that you will end up paying back every cent of that savings when it comes to insuring that vehicle. Many standard car insurance companies will refuse to write a full-coverage policy on a flooded or salvaged car. It’s possible that you might be able to obtain liability-only car insurance coverage on such a vehicle, but few insurers will venture to provide collision or comprehensive auto insurance coverage. Why is this? Because, let’s face it, these cars are just inherently unsafe.

Flooded cars in particular remain dangerous even after a thorough repair, say the experts. There is virtually no way to completely rid the vehicle of all moisture, which will get you in trouble where it seeps in out of sight. The modules of the vehicle, its air bags, the seat belts, and any/all electronic components are especially vulnerable to dampness, and may never again work properly or safely after a dunking.

It’s important that used-car buyers stay alert and aware of the fact that a vehicle’s history can be all-too-easily fabricated. Modern-day vehicle history services have lulled drivers into a false sense of security, thinking that they are protected from unsafe vehicles by a database. In fact, experts confirms, these reports don’t always provide sufficient information about how a car was damaged to determine whether it is safe to drive. Even if you know about the damage, there’s no saying that you can adequately determine if it is safe, anyway. Be careful when purchasing a vehicle with an out-of-state title, or which appears to have been shipped to several states within a short period of time. You might become the victim of a title-washing scam.

Unfortunately, my home state of Florida ranks number one for insurance fraud cases reported by Allstate. The next town over, Tampa, ranks second in the whole nation as cities where it is a major problem (followed by Miami and Orlando at numbers three and four, and the city of Hialeah in number eight). New York State sees the second highest rates of insurance fraud, with New York City pulling up the number one spot for fraud by city. California, Texas, and Illinois round out the top five states.

One of the first ways that people will commit auto insurance fraud is by causing accidents in which the criminal(s) deliberately involve you in a collision and make it look like your fault. Some examples of this listed by Allstate include: the “drive down” (in which the suspect waves a victim ahead of them to pass, as when merging, and then the suspect accelerates, making it look like the victim used unsafe passing procedures), the “swoop and swat” (in which two colluding vehicles are involved: one to cut off a safely-driving vehicle and then slam their brakes, the other to box in the victim’s car so they have nowhere else to safely go), and the “t-bone” (in which the suspect waits for someone to cross through an intersection and drives forward so as to get hit on purpose, with a “witness” planted on the corner waiting to blame the victim for being incorrect).

There are also staged accidents in which drivers intentionally collide so that they both can claim injury and vehicle damage. These situations work because sometimes doctors and lawyers collude with “victims” to inflate a claim, make it more credible and pressure insurers to settle.

Another common type of insurance fraud happens when auto repair shops commit fraud by billing for unperformed work or charging to replace parts that were merely repaired.

Some ways that Allstate recommends for avoiding insurance fraud from being perpetrated upon you mostly include keeping your wits around you. First of all, never put an insurance company decal or sticker on your car. It’s a signal to people planning a caused accident that you have liability insurance. Newsflash: that’s not something that you want to advertise! This is also common sense, but be sure that you always avoid following

too closely, particularly when the vehicle in front of you has three or more passengers. The reason for this is that people who cause fraudulent accidents pack their cars to increase the dollar amount of the injury claims they will file. Yes, some people are really this sick and desperate.

Always keep your eyes peeled for traffic in other lanes, even if they don’t necessarily have anything to do with you at the moment. As mentioned earlier, a common insurance fraud scam is to prey upon innocent, safely-driving people by having a car in an adjoining lane to swerve in front of you and immediately brake. This is another instance where you definitely want to watch out for nearby vehicles with three or more occupants. When pulling into traffic, give yourself plenty of room. Don’t make it easy for crooks to get the best of you!

If you are involved in an accident, always call the police and have a report filed, no matter how seemingly insignificant the damage or who is at fault. This is for your protection, so that nobody can go back and claim that different things happened later. Make sure you count the number of passengers in the other car, since it is a common scam to claim more people were injured than were actually in the car at the time of the accident. Keep your personal record of the accident in a safe place, in case you need to refer to it later. Immediately tell your insurance company.

If you are involved in an accident and need to get your car repaired, try to make sure that you go with someone reliable and trustworthy based on recommendations or positive reviews. Once the work gets done, make sure that you compare the body shop’s bill with the insurance adjuster’s repair estimate. The amounts – and particularly the parts total – should be fairly close. If there is a discrepancy, this could be a good sign that your shop is trying to scam your insurance, which could end up costing you money.

One of the biggest mysteries about dressing for a job interview is figuring out what the common dress code is. Usually you can dress appropriately for any situation by following the lead of others, but this can be a task when you don’t have access to the job yet. Some industries have a standard that is known and easy to recognize: suits of navy blue for accountants and bankers, black suits for lawyers, and so on. But what do you wear for a job interview if there isn’t a well known “typical” dress code? What if you are vying for a job where workers wear uniforms? Complicating the matter further are companies that allow more casual attire – how do walk the line between fitting in and looking sloppy? These are all questions that tend to plague interviewees. After all, you want to look your professional best, but you also want to appear as if you blend in. The good news is that there are some expert tips for dressing for a job interview, no matter WHAT job you are trying for.

First off, regardless of what job you are seeking and what you ultimately wear, your clothes should first and foremost be neat and impeccably clean. Don’t be afraid of your iron – use it to press the wrinkles out of everything. A neatly pressed outfit makes a big impact! Make sure there are no spots, stains, or tears in any items. Shirts tucked in always look nice. In terms of neatness and cleanliness, shoes are important as well. Make sure your shoes are free of scuffs and dirt. They should not look old, raggedy, or unsightly, as they are an extension of your outfit. Even if you will not be held to the same standards for the actual job, make sure that you go above and beyond to impress for the interview.

In terms of hair – focus on neat, professional styles. This is not the time to experiment with funky colors or crazy styles… forget the Day-Glo blue Mohawk, for instance. In most conservative workplaces, short hair for men is what’s considered appropriate. Women should keep their hair neat if worn down, or else tied back nicely – no sloppy ponytails! This rule also includes facial hair, for which men should make sure they have shaved and groomed appropriately.

Women who wear makeup should stick to subtle, flattering tones. Whether you should wear makeup or not – assuming that you don’t normally – is a contentious issue. There are some who claim that a touch of makeup makes a better appearance, since it makes a lady’s look appear “finished,” and shows that she takes pains with her appearance. Others would claim that it’s a strictly personal choice. Regardless, make sure that if you do wear makeup, you avoid the frosted eyeshadow and electric pink lipstick.

Both men and women should ensure that their nails are clean and of a reasonable length. Yes, even if you are applying for a “dirt under your fingernails” job, you should take pains to clean up for that initial handshake. It reflects well on you and the care you take for your appearance. Ladies, keep the nail polish subtle. A nice French manicure or soft pink will always look nicer than neon orange or bold decals, for instance.

In general, when selecting your outfit, remember that you should dress for the job that you want. Are you applying for a manager’s position? Well, you should then dress like managers in your company do. You can almost always find a model on which to base your outfit, whether it’s at the actual company where you aim to work, at a competitor, or at a similar position. How about dressing when the dress code is “casual?” That’s great for employees who like to be comfy at work, but it can be hell on an interviewee who wants to strike the right note. But don’t fret – there are some simple rules that can help you make the right decision. First of all, know that casual does not equal sloppy. Your clothing should still be neat and clean no matter what. Yes, that means the iron! In terms of selection, it’s a standing fact that you simply cannot go wrong with khakis and a sport shirt or a nice sweater. Ladies have a bit of an expanded option with a simple dress and a nice cardigan.

One way to find out the dress code for a place where you are applying is to find out whether it’s formal (suit and tie) or casual by asking around or by observing employees arriving for work. Hey, a little craftiness not only doesn’t hurt, but it could help you nab the job. Once you know that, set out to dress slightly better than you would if you were an employee. For example, if the dress code is very casual, you should take it up a notch. Do you have body modifications like tattoos or piercings? Although many workplaces have greatly relaxed their standards against this sort of thing in recent years, don’t assume – your best bet is to cover up tattoos and remove body jewelry until you know whether they are acceptable at that particular workplace. Another option for piercings is to buy a clear plastic retainer to keep the hole intact while the normal piercing jewelry is out.