Agents For Change

[Sam]

A friend was telling me about a group of insurance agents called Agents For Change. The basic point of the organization is to "enact an optional federal charter (OFC) to allow producers the option of being regulated at either the federal or the state level." The benefits of this would be many, and I think it is a laudable goal. You can check them out at Agents for Change - STARTPAGE

I urge you to check it out and consider joining. There is no cost.

 

[J.R.]

A friend was telling me about a group of insurance agents called Agents For Change. The basic point of the organization is to "enact an optional federal charter (OFC) to allow producers the option of being regulated at either the federal or the state level." The benefits of this would be many, and I think it is a laudable goal. You can check them out at Agents for Change - STARTPAGE

I urge you to check it out and consider joining. There is no cost.

This is a great idea. We agents need to get together and organize our actions to address the concerns that most of us think about consistently.

 

[James]

Visited the site, I think its a terrible idea!

 

[Sam]

Why?

 

[somarco]

Ask anyone with a securities license how well they like dual regulation.

Federal regulation of insurance is full of holes and creates more opportunity for fraud than any other plans. Look at all the MEWA's that fall under ERISA and you will see what I mean.

As badly as the states mess things up, regulation at the federal level is an abortion.

Just ask the folks involved in the MA market the last few years. They will tell you CMS is nuts.

 

[Sam]

I don't think that dual regulation is an ideal by any means, but the fact is that most security licenses are national.

In any case, do you think that the small group reform laws are helpful legislation? Since repeal isn't possible, this would help circumvent them. If products could be files with the fed and be sold all over, then there would be a more healthy free market in health insurance.

Do you think that 1900+ state mandates are a good idea?

The MEWA fraud is a good point, but I still see far more benefit than negatives.

 

[somarco]

Consumers are mostly ignorant and too lazy to really check anything out. That is why they get sucked into some of the junk that is out there. Lately I have seen quite a few guaranteed issue health plans. One such plan is an association that can be sold in any state. Two tier rates (single, family), full coverage for pre-ex, billed as a true major med.

Supposedly the issuing carrier is Protective and is being marketed "exclusively" by Time GA's.

Several brokers have contacted me about the Per4mance plan, offering $1 leads, etc.

The application is not filed in GA. Even if it were the DOI would never approve it or the marketing material. I was told I can sell in any state.

If that were true it would have to be a surplus lines product issued by non-admitted carriers.

But guess what?

Apparently lots of agents are already selling this. It will crash & burn within the next 6 months.

So lets take it a step further. Say state barriers are removed and folks in NY can buy a policy in OH where it is much cheaper. What will happen to the healthy folks in NY who are subsidizing the sickies who buy the guaranteed issue plans?

The NY rates, which are already high, will get even worse. NY carriers will pull out of the state. Then what?

The hodge podge of laws & regulation is already a mess. Throwing in regulation at the federal level, which already affects most group plans, will only make things worse.

I have yet to see anything coming out of DC about our industry that makes sense. Every time the folks up there get involved they just make it worse.

 

[James]

Why?

I don't even want to entertain such foolishness, sorry should of never of posted in this thread.

 

[Sam]

Come on James, I have never known you to back off a debate on an issue before. In any case, my mind is opened to be changed, Bob already has me halfway there. You know I respect your opinion, If you have some good arguments, I would really like to hear them.

 

[TXINSURANCE]

Do you think that 1900+ state mandates are a good idea?

Nope I don't agree with virtually any stat mandates - but that is another story...

That being said this push to a socialistic big government regulation is generally a horrible idea at all levels.

It will only be OPTIONAL for a period of time.

The real push on this is from the carriers who spend millions on regulation and compliance mutli state - this has very little to do with the individual small time broker.

Let's see what I would have to look forward to:

-Large fees
-Additional background check (I could care less, but some would care)
-Possible eye scans / dna - who knows in the future
-Possible credit checks
-Loss of money spent on non resident other compliance to date

I always look at WHO is truly pushing for change to find out the real answer.