Early detection is key to cancer survival rates and England does not cover early screening as well as many other countries do and thus they are near the bottom of many cancer survival stats with the Us, Japan and France at the top of a 2008 study of five common cancers. In our country those on government healthcare fare much worse than those with private insurance, food for thought. It seems that poorer people everywhere fare worse than those with more. This article is very recent and informative for comparing life expectancy and treatments between countries. You may be surprised but if you take away accidental deaths(cars, violence, overdoses) guess which country has the highest life expectancy, yes the USA does. The new OECD ten year study has not been published yet and the chart in the link is the most recent data available so this might change but probally not that much. Here is a link that might be useful: wealth begets health

Hi Mary, We still have 3 more years left on a 5-year ARM at 5.25 percent. Our friend (a financial planner) is urging us to refinance now, because rates are going up and he feels this long term of loose money is reaching the end. He warns that in 3 years we could be looking at 7 or 8 percent or even worse. I'm actually a little suspicious about the financial planner... he's not doing his math very well, it appears, in addition to not being very historically aware of how interest rates react in the markets over the long haul. Long term rates have bumped up a bit in the last week, but short term rates actually have significant downward economic pressures. The only reason the Fed hasn't dropped the Prime (yet) is because they were awaiting (with crossed fingers) for the long bonds (long term interest rates) to climb back into their higher relative band. Its true that nobody can guarantee exact predictions, however relative forecasts can be quite reliable. FURTHER, the savings you would continue to accumulate over the next 3 years in your existing fixed term at 5.25 is likely to surpass the costs of an earlier refinance, even considering a point bump in rate, if that was where you refinanced now. Our mortgage lender (it's a local company who keeps the loans) says we should wait (but of course it's in his interest -- no pun intended -- to have us sit for 3 years and be forced to refi at a higher rate, right?). The rate as of Friday was 6.25 with 1 point. Even if the local bank is holding the servicing (who you pay each month,) they LONG ago sold the underlying loan note to Wall Street for securitization. They would certainly stand to make MORE money if you refinanced today with them at the higher yield, rather than your suspicion that they'd be losing money. The loan officer's advice is actually NON-self-serving... sounds to me he/she's being sincere in proposing to your best interests. I hesitate to shop too much because I got blasted by a lender (whose daughter went to school with our son) because I didn't go with him after talking to him a long time when we bought this house; his bank didn't have the same package that another bank did -- but he said he would have met the price. (I thought, "if you think we're compatriates because of our kids, why didn't you give me the best deal in the first place?") Anyway, it made me hesitant to talk to lenders.... Instead of talking to retail lenders, I'd suggest you shop a good personal financial broker... someone who operates on a "transparent disclosure" basis (retail lenders can legally hide some, or even ALL of their revenues,) and who you can trust to shop & structure the best overall financing for you, matched to your long term family savings & investment goals, and including the equity forecast for your specific area. Also, realize that there is no "best deal in the first place." Financing isn't like a toaster oven where there is a pre-set, knowable solid price/rate. Different sources may have different "appetites" for certain niches of loans at any point in time. NON-SOLICITING EXAMPLE DISCLAIMER One of my firms affiliate Wall Street banks just sent us an email asking specifically for up to $2MM of additional Jumbo loans this month in order for their bank to complete a securitization issuance (a recycling of money into bonds for their banking clients to then buy.) For all the loans we can generate for this particular bank, they will "sweeten the pot" by 1% to our borrowers. That wasn't available this morning, and it's GONE when the additional $2M bucket is full. In addition, SOME of our bank affiliates will honor our "absolute best rate/fee guarantee" when our client commits to a binding exclusive representation agreement (which is not something we normally require... but which can work very nicely in our client's favor competitively sometimes!!!) THUS... while your fellow PTA member may be a little "too close to home" to choose as a personal financial advisor (not to mention that they are constrained to only the funding their own bank offers...) it can absolutely work to your advantage to carefully find a high quality mortgage broker who operates from a financial advisory perspective. Good luck as you proceed! Dave Donhoff Strategic Equity & Mortgage Planner

Hi Laurie, I guess I am not sure how to go about getting the best rate, etc. At any moment in time, pretty much everyone has the same (or very similar) access to the market rate structures. The major difference (to you) is that mortgage brokers are required to fully disclose the actual underlying wholesale rate structures, while retail bank loan officers can hide them and "mark up" the rate you actually get to lock. Comparing "quoted" rates before you have your appraisal done & are ready to lock is futile, because even if the loan officer you are asking is being truthful, the underlying lockable market rates can & do shift literally daily (sometimes hourly.) The *BEST* way to get the absolute lowest available rate at the time you are actually locking is to use a mortgage broker who will agree to a flat/fixed fee, and show you the actual wholesale market rates you can choose from at the point of rate lock. Could you expand on what you said about having the financing properly structured? Sure. There are many ways to unintentionally get yourself locked into paying much more of your money out to the bank, and losing what you could have been gaining. Here's a very vanilla & simple example; Some people take a 15 yr FRM loan in the belief that it is better due to a lower interest rate offered. They may save 1/4% or even 1/2% in mortgage interest in doing so. Unfortunately, this also increases their amortization burden (a higher payment, with more money going into the actual real estate equity.) The amortized funds COULD have been accumulating in a compounding tax-advantaged growth account, and almost always at a higher rate of growth than the apparent interest "savings" from the paying down of the mortgage. Further, the starving of cash away from reserves and growth accounts by sending the money against the mortgage also means that a responsible family has to carry (and pay for) more insurance coverages... because they don't have the liquid reserves to be able to safely increase their deductibles and take more lenient terms (which then drops their insurance premiums.) Lastly, the money that gets directed into the real estate (against the mortgage balance) is money that is *NOT* growing the family net worth at all. It secures the one-time saving of interest (which counts, no doubt,) but it doesn't have the compound growth of funds growing alongside (but not INside) the real estate. Of course, there are lots of variables in the above explanation, and frankly a lot more that aren't even detailed out here. Ignoring these *WILL* cost the average homeowner tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of dollars more than they had to pay, over time. Hope that helps, Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner

Hi Landmarker, You described exactly what I said. It is a hedge, with fees going to the insurance co. taken off the upside. No, that is not what I said. You leave "the upside" as an ambiguous statement, while I am explaining the factual detail. The costs to manage the funds are *NOT* taken from the CLIENT'S gains, which are based on a fixed calculation tied to the performance of the index. Rather, the costs are paid from the company's own internal performance. The client is *NOT* exposed to the risks of direct investment in the securities (in this particular type of product.) There are 2 key points... 1. It costs money to peform this hedge It does NOT directly cost the client's money*, it is paid by the company's money. (*Given that the client keeps their time commitment to allow the company sufficient time to work the funds to earn enough internal returns, on average. The time commitment is *NOT* relative to performance, but a pre-specified concrete amount of time (typically from 3-10 years, contracted in advance.) 2. This hedge cannot come with a guarantee > the cost of borrowing. Currently individuals can take out 30 FRM loans at 4.5% or lower, and put that money to work at a guaranteed 7.2% growth rate for a 10 year term, and if done inside a ROTH IRA it grows tax free, and can be accessed to spend tax free. You *ARE* correct that no specific provider guarantees that the market will provide this opportunity... *HOWEVER*, the market is doing so right now on a very safe basis, at much lower costs than direct securities investments (of *ANY* level of sophistication.) There will be many days the hedge out peforms the S&P and there will be many days the S&P outpeforms the hedge. That depends on the time frame you look at. Your statement is correct in a blind one-annual basis. Taken at a string of consecutive years, the S&P has historically *NEVER EVER* outperformed the hedge on a 3-consecutive-year basis or longer. For those willint to take the short-term risks for the possibility of the short-term home runs... there is the lottery... or there is direct market investing. Either is attractive to some people. Neither is the long-term best choice. There will be no days the fees for investing in the S&P exceeeds the fees for investing in the hedge. That would be *every* day, if you are referring to the fixed-index annuities. So the question an investor needs to ask is do they get a benefit from the annuity (worth the cost?)... For many the answer is yes. For many more the answer will be no. That's why S&P 500 index is a more popular investtment than annuties. No, that's not why at all. It *IS* true that direct index investment is more popular, but the overwhelming reason is that the industry that promotes it makes *MUCH* more money by doing so, *AND* leaves the burden of downside risk on the shoulders of the clients. This creates a MASSIVE incentive for allegiance and promotion of the concept, and a MASSIVE incentive to keep client's money *AWAY* from the safer annuities with the same (and better) performance. Allowing funds into the annuities kills the golden goose of management fees for securities. It really is tantamount to the promotions of the lottery, and the securities world knows it quite well. Humans (a very unfortunately large number, anyway,) LOVE the thrill of the gamble, and the meme of "you gotta be in the game in order to win the home runs" keeps people in... to be fleeced over and over and over again. Its tragic that people only stop & think about it (if/when they think about it deeply at all) when the markets drop and they discover that THEY are the ones holding the bag all the way down, despite having paid 1-3% of their total funds in securities fees to the stock brokerage companies and their salesmen for years and years. One size definitely does not fit all... but unprotected and ungauranteed securities investment is playing with a very volatile fire... it burns even the sophisticated traders, and decimates the unsophisticated public. Cheers Dave Donhoff Leverage Planner