Currently the national law allows people to collect unemployment benefits for 79 weeks. 79 weeks is already an extension of the usual time limit for unemployment and, yet, legislation is being considered that would extend this benefit time. Why? Because many people have been unemployed for longer than 79 weeks, and the number of people unemployed continues to increase.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, "Some 5 million people, about one-third of those unemployed, have been without a job for six months, the highest number since data was first collected in 1948. There are nearly six unemployed for every available job."

The questions people are asking me lately are very different from the types of questions I received a couple of years ago. Now people call wondering where to go for bankruptcy counseling? Or, how they can pay for college when expected loans are suddenly not available?

If you're facing financial challenges, now is a good time to seek help so that you can make informed decisions. University of Illinois Extension has several websites that can help you.

Getting Through Tough Financial Times provides clear information and strategies to manage your finances with reduced income.

Choosing a Financial Professional discusses how to evaluate financial professionals and to choose one that is a good match for your needs.

Every day brings interesting new twists and turns in the healthcare debate. From Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to more talk of death panels, the debate continues on and public opinion has become more polarized than ever. In my last blog, I told you if you sent me an email, I may include your comments in my next blog. Boy, do you have opinions. I received a cross-section of responses from health professionals, concerned citizens, and outraged taxpayers. Here are some of the comments you posted to my Facebook page.

Tanyanika Conaway commented on how she has noticed that people without insurance receive "okay" service, but not the best because they don't have insurance. Karen Grove Hereford, another health professional, feels that if healthcare is free for everyone, services will be substandard. She sees the bigger picture of hospitals not being able to charge their normal rates, which would lead to salary cuts to employees. She stated "I pay a lot for my insurance and I feel I should get good service. I give excellent service to patients whether they have insurance or not."

Daryl Van Johnson feels a competitive public option would balance things. "There is no incentive for insurance companies to do anything for us. They deny claims that are expensive for them, they drop people who get too sick and all this while pushing the cost of premiums through the roof. A public option would cause the cost to be lower, which would force insurance companies to lower their prices to keep people from moving to the public option."

Tasha Thomas, an RN Supervisor said "I hear what everyone is saying and you all have good points. The health care system is big and there is not an easy fix to it...Research Canada universal insurance...you are put on a waiting list for surgery (if it is not emergent). The taxes in other countries for universal insurance are expensive. Remember that employers pay their share into benefits and they pick the packages for their employees...and they set limits to the benefits offered to their employees, not the insurance company. I always tell people to educate themselves regarding the health care system because what you don't know can hurt you."

To place this debate in perspective for you, please allow me to share my personal medical stories over the past month. In August, my mother-in-law passed away. She died of complications related to lung cancer. She had been in and out of the hospital for quite some time. She had Medicare and Medicaid. I'm sure her bills were in excess of $1 million. We have not seen a bill yet; my guess, it's all been paid. My son got food poisoning that same week. He went to the emergency room and was admitted for overnight observation. He was released by 12 noon. He didn't spend a full 24 hours in the hospital. His bill was almost $10,000 and we are expected to pay a little over $1,000 out of pocket.

In addition to all of this, my husband has been having the same tests done for about four years now. Our insurance normally paid the entire cost minus a $20 co pay. Last week, we received a bill for almost $300 for his routine tests. The tests were not considered "necessary" and we were responsible for the entire cost (which would have actually been $750 without insurance). Our health insurance was switched to a different carrier this year by my husband's company. We supposedly have "good insurance." The thing is we pay a higher premium and are responsible for more out of pocket costs than in the past. When I think back to what we paid three to five years ago, health insurance costs have skyrocketed. Left or right, I think we can all agree if something isn't done, we will all be in trouble.

As far as the death panel discussion goes, I believe as many of you do, these panels have existed all along. This won't be anything new. My father-in-law has been in the hospital for a couple of months. Talks of placing him in hospice care have escalated recently; his insurance is running out. When insurance companies and hospitals decide that it is medically unlikely that your condition will improve, financial considerations take priority.

I would like to close this blog with the comments Dr. Tonya Coats stated in her email to me. "I am very conflicted about this debate. It is mainly a matter of semantics. We call it a "healthcare" debate when it is actually a "health care coverage" debate. This is where people who are worried about the government's interference in our lives get it twisted. I believe everyone should have access to basic healthcare screening and emergent needs. It doesn't matter if the economy is good or bad because for some it is always bad. My big problem as a healthcare provider has been the lack of personal responsibility. Take cervical cancer, for instance, screening for it will prevent death. So everyone should be screened. But, it is a sexually transmitted disease. Are we willing to stop having inappropriate or unprotected intercourse? (Personal responsibility) Further, some of the most common and expensive disease processess (hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, and even some cancers) are strongly impacted by life choices. No one wants to put down the fork and get up and exercise to lose weight (Personal Responsibility). None of this is being discussed and all we seem to want to do is throw money at the problem - "The American Way." Finally, nobody wants to take the financial responsibility. Paying for health insurance has to come from taxes, get ready to pay. When this bill passes a lot of people are going to be very disappointed when they don't become magically healthier."

It's up to us. We have to take responsibility for our lives; no one can regulate our choices. But, as Christina Glover so profoundly stated "I understand about personal responsibility, but sometimes bad things happen to good people." If we have a choice, we should choose wisely. Until we talk again…

Earlier this year, my husband's employer notified him that it was freezing his pension plan. By law, he will retain all the benefits he had earned up to that point, but his pension benefit is "frozen" at that level and will not increase. Additional years of service or pay increases will have no impact. At the same time, they suspended company matching contributions to his 401(k). None of this is good news. But what actions should we take to mitigate the impact?

Revise Retirement Income Projections

We should revise our expectations for retirement income by re-calculating any projections we've done. I've always been conservative with projections where our pension income was concerned. I've either used just the benefit that we've already earned, or only assumed another year or two or service credit. So the numbers I ran in the past may still be valid.

But many people base their projections on the benefit they'll earn if they continue to work for their current employer until retirement age. Those projections show a lot more pension income than you're likely to actually receive. For those rose-colored projections to come true, several things have to happen:

• Your employer has to stay in business. Even if it's bought out by another company, your benefits could change.
• You have to remain employed there until you choose to retire. With the frequency of layoffs over the past 10 years, I'm not sure what the odds are for that. In today's economy, middle and upper level employees are just as at risk of layoff as lower-wage earners.
• Your employer has to continue the pension plan.
  • They are under no obligation to continue the pension plan, and funding pensions is a big financial commitment for companies. If the organization is having financial problems, freezing a pension could be a logical choice. This is especially true if other employers who hire people with similar skills aren't offering a pension, or when unemployement is high - as it is now. One of the main reasons companies offer good benfits is to retain employees. Today, retention is not the main problem companies face. It's turning a profit.

Check Your Insured Benefit Amount

One thing you probably don't have to worry about -even if your employer files bankruptcy - is getting the pension benefits you've earned so far. Non-government employers pay into the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation to insure those benefits. In the event the employer goes bankrupt and they have not set aside sufficient funds to cover their pension obligations, the PBGC will cover the payments. There are limits; if you're a highly paid employee, your pension might exceed the insured amounts. But the PBGC says, "Most people receive the full benefit they had earned before the plan terminated."

Here's a quick run-down of the maximum insured benefits for selected ages for plans that end in 2009:

*Both spouses the same age.

For more details about PBGC insured limits, see their news release.

There is no insurance for your 401(k), 403(b), 457, or other defined contribution plan; it's up to you to manage those investments wisely.

Increase YOUR Contributions

To make up for losing future employer contributions toward your retirement, you probably need to increase the amount of your personal savings and contributions each year toward retirement. Some options for doing that are to start or increase contributions to:

• Your employer "defined contribution plan" such as a 401(k) or 403(b),
• Your own IRA.
• A spousal IRA for a nonworking spouse
• A SEP, SIMPLE, or Keogh plan if you have any income from self-emloyment
• Non-tax advantaged savings accounts. If you use a "buy and hold" strategy in these regular accounts, you effectively get tax deferral on the growth in the investment until you sell it. Index mutual funds are good candidates for this.

If you no longer have any employer retirement plan, not even one to which you can contribute from your paycheck, you might have an option that was denied you in the past: deductible contributions to an IRA. "Active participants" in employer plans whose income is over certain limits cannot make deductible contributions to traditional IRAs. If you have not had any contributions to employer plan at any time during the year, you are no longer an active participant and you can deduct your IRA contribution regardless of your income. For 2009, those limits for adjusted gross income are:

• Single filers $55,000 -$65,000.
• Married filing jointly $89,000-109,000.
• Married filing separately $0 to $10,000.

See IRA Basics for more information about traditional and Roth IRAs.

I'll save the issue of whether you should consider an annuity to fill the gap left by a frozen pension for a future post. So stay tuned.

To send questions or comments about this post, click on my name below.