Insurance Tips and trik auto insurance, auto insurance quotes, auto insurance companies, auto insurance florida, auto insurance quotes online, auto insurance america

Recently, Co-Blogger Bob clued me into a new (?) strategy some agents are using to help their clients. The idea is pretty simple and straightforward: combine an inexpensive Medishare (healthcare sharing ministry) plan with a commercial Short Term Plan. The Medishare component means one dodges the fine penalty tax, and the STM plan undergirds the Medishare (to be fair, I'm not really clear on how, but that's another post).

Bob then wondered if "a Jewish agent would offer Medishare plans to clients?"

Actually, that's an interesting question. The answer is "yes, but no."

Let me explain:

I have no objection to selling plans available only to Christians. After all, I've sold MediGap plans and I'm under age 65. But that's not why I wouldn't sell them:

I'm an insurance agent, and I hold myself out (semi-)professionally as such. So if I sell a Medishare plan, which is specifically not insurance, I'd be concerned about an E&O claim in-the-making.

Why is that?

Well, what happens when my client has a claim that the Medishare folks decline? He's going to come back to me and ask why I sold him an insurance plan that wasn't insurance. And how do you think the court's going to decide?

So yeah, I'll pass.

Original content copyright © InsureBlog

from InsureBlog http://ift.tt/2nSwCzf
via

Insurance Tips and trik auto insurance, auto insurance quotes, auto insurance companies, auto insurance florida, auto insurance quotes online, auto insurance america

A lot of ink and pixels have been spilled over the years touting schemes like "Medicare for All" and Universal Health Care. All seem to rest on the assumption that government-run delivery of health care will be the greatest, most efficient thing since sliced bread.

As we've long chronicled, of course, this is most definitely not the case.

Here's a recent illustration:

"One Sunday in March this year, I woke up at 2am with a grumbling pain in my right groin ... [Dr] Anson told me I had a minute kidney stone stuck in my ureter ... three weeks later, when nature had failed to take its course, [Dr] Anson decided to operate to remove it."

So far, so good. But then you scroll to the end of the article, and there's this little gem:

"The operation costs £2,500 privately, £1,200 or less on the NHS if done as day surgery."

Note that even with "free" health care available, folks willingly pay over twice as much for private services. Why do you think that is?

Here's a clue:

"Think the ER can treat a ureteral stone? All it can do is give you some pain pills. A urologist has no obligation to remove your stone unless you can pay for his/her services ... Private surgery? Now why would you pay twice as much for private surgery when the UK offers universal healthcare?

 All depends on how long you want to wait."

You get what you pay for. At best.

[Hat Tip: Co-Blogger Bob V]

Original content copyright © InsureBlog

from InsureBlog http://ift.tt/2ofGT9X
via

Insurance Tips and trik auto insurance, auto insurance quotes, auto insurance companies, auto insurance florida, auto insurance quotes online, auto insurance america

This goes way beyond our Stupid Agent Tricks series. Thanks to FoIB Jeff M, we learn about these two creeps:

"[T]wo retired insurance agents were convicted of targeting senior citizens as part of a multi-million dollar scam that spanned seven years. Milton Hooks, 72, of Rocky Mount and James Mangum, 69, of Tarboro scammed nearly 80 victims out of $11 million from 2004 to 2011."

Touting the benefits of "Fixed Indexed Annuities," these two crooks enticed their victims to raid their 401(k)'s and insurance policies to "invest" in these  products, generating some $600,000 in commissions. In addition, over $300,000 went straight into their bank accounts.

All told, they were convicted of a half dozen counts of "obtaining property by false pretenses" and forced to to repay their victims.

The worst part, though? This:

"The judge ... gave the pair suspended sentences because of the restitution."

Um, no.

If you rob a bank, and subsequently return all the cash you took, do you really think you'd get probation?

Yeah, me either.

Original content copyright © InsureBlog

from InsureBlog http://ift.tt/2oceIZ4
via

Insurance Tips and trik auto insurance, auto insurance quotes, auto insurance companies, auto insurance florida, auto insurance quotes online, auto insurance america

Yeah, about that 3000% rate decrease:

"In Anchorage, premiums for a silver ACA plan for a 64-year-old couple making $82K a year = *$50,930* a year. That's not a misprint."

The plan looks like this:

 

[click to embiggen]

So, $50,000 before the $14,300 max out-of-pocket.

That's over $64,000 in potential total annual cost.

But hey, they get free birth control.

Which is nice.

Original content copyright © InsureBlog

from InsureBlog http://ift.tt/2oz2lTq
via

Insurance Tips and trik auto insurance, auto insurance quotes, auto insurance companies, auto insurance florida, auto insurance quotes online, auto insurance america

We've written pretty extensively over the past dozen or so years about Universal Life, very little of which was complimentary. The design itself, especially the first few iterations, really needed a young person as the insured, and said young person really needed to "over-fund" the plan (ie not be skimpy with the premiums). This to ensure that the policy had enough "oomph" (in the form of cash value) to carry it in the latter years.

Recently, I had occasion to work with one of our P&C clients who has a MetLife UL purchased from "a friend" many years ago. Of course, this friend is long gone from the insurance biz, and for some time "Marty" (not his real name) has been trying to figure out why his policy is imploding. In desperation he called us to see if there was anything we could do to help even though we're not MetLife agents.

Of course I agreed: he's been an agency client for well over 30 years, and besides, he's a charming older gent who needs our help.

The facts are thus: At age 58, he purchased was sold a Universal Life plan with a fixed, $50,000 face amount, paying just shy of $100 a month. Now one might think this was sufficient to really give the policy that "oomph" that I mentioned, but at age 58, not so much. Seeing as how he's now 86, things have caught up with him.

He called Home Office last year, and was assured that the plan would run to his age 95. Well, that's how he understood it, but the reality is that the plan is designed to end at his age 95 (at the latest). What he was supposed to do at age 96 remains a mystery.

A few weeks ago, he got his annual report, which told him that, contrary to the nice home office lady's claim, the policy was due to expire next year at this time, well before he celebrates that magic 95. And that's when he called us.

Because I'm not the Agent of Record (nor do I currently represent MetLife), I had Marty pop in so we could call Home Office together. This way, they could identify him and he could give them permission to discuss policy particulars with me. Which they did.

The bottom line was that the plan was destined for self-destruction next March, unless we made some significant changes. I asked for a variety of "what if's:"

■ What if we lowered the face amount and kept the same premium?

■ What if we lowered the face amount and increased the premium?

■ What premium would be necessary to carry the policy, at the current $50,000 face amount, to age 95?

Turns out, there is no dollar amount that will take the policy to Age 95 (thanks, Uncle Sam!). Of the other options, the only one that made a modicum of sense was lowering the face amount and doubling the premium. And that suited Marty just fine, so we just sent off the forms to accomplish that (and to name me as Agent of Record so that I can call on his behalf if I have additional questions down the road).

Honestly, I don't know what I would do in that situation. I do know that there were no "good" options.

Just glad I could be of service to a long-time agency client.

Original content copyright © InsureBlog

from InsureBlog http://ift.tt/2mPuQjm
via

Insurance Tips and trik auto insurance, auto insurance quotes, auto insurance companies, auto insurance florida, auto insurance quotes online, auto insurance america

We've written before about Short Term Medical (STM) plans as potentially viable ObamaPlan alternatives. They're a lot less expensive than O'Care plans, and offer lower out-of-pocket maximum's, to boot.

On the flip side, they're underwritten (which means that one must be relatively healthy to qualify), they don't cover pre-existing conditions, and (perhaps worst of all) they're not ACA-compliant, That last means that they don't satisfy the fine penalty tax.

Still, a lot of folks do the math and determine that it's worth taking the (negligible) risk.

The other day, though, I got an interesting email offering what purported to be an "ACA Penalty Free & Guarantee Issue" Short Term Medical plan.

Hunh.

I reached out to co-blogger Patrick for his reaction, and he replied:

"Looks like an oxymoron. I don't see how it is possible unless it is somehow tied to a Christian ministry product. Like most "new products" I've seen, these are likely too good to be true."

As usual, Patrick nailed it. When I responded to the email with a request for additional information, the representative very promptly sent me details, and followed up with a phone call confirming that this is, in fact, a sharing ministry-based plan.

I have no particular objections to these, but they do limit the marketability and, of course, they're not really "insurance." Still, they may offer a reasonably-priced ObamaPlan alternative that's acceptable to people in the market for such (which, we now know, is a growing demographic).

Something to consider.

Original content copyright © InsureBlog

from InsureBlog http://ift.tt/2nd8CTo
via

Insurance Tips and trik auto insurance, auto insurance quotes, auto insurance companies, auto insurance florida, auto insurance quotes online, auto insurance america

We were long-time fans of the PCIP (Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan), the one part of ObamaCare we that actualyl seemed to make sense. So of course it was planned to sunset after a time, leaving a lot of folks with few choices and less care.

Now, FoIB Dr Val Jones writes about "stability funds," part of the ill-fated AHCA, funded at (gulp) $100 billion over the next 10 years, and which was designed to allow "states to start to repair their individual insurance markets ... With better policy choices, states can make coverage cheaper and more attractive for consumers and coax insurers back into the market, and the stability fund is a powerful tool."

On its face, the idea has merit: the gummint (thee and me) serve as reinsurers, backstopping major claims. This was tried in Maine back in 2011, where an "invisible high risk pool ...  picked up the total cost of claims above $10,000." This seems to me to be a legitimate role of the state (although I could be persuaded, for example, that $10k is too low). If it were included as part of a total reformulation - and of course after O'Care was totally repealed - then I think the concept has merit.

I recently had a conversation with NYT reporter Reed Abelson, and mentioned that I was a fan of PCIP, and that I'd like to see something like it incorporated into whatever new scheme our congresscritters managed to cook up. The idea is that it encourages carriers to take on some additional risk without breaking the bank. I'd also like to see it coupled with some kind of assessment, so that that carriers are incentivized to spread that risk amongst themselves.

I know: Wishes in one hand....

Original content copyright © InsureBlog

from InsureBlog http://ift.tt/2or8II2
via