- 10,830
I don't know who you guys are getting your information from, other than superficial snippets posted in various publications.
I know where I am getting MY information from, and it ain't the same source at all.
Mine, I do believe, will prove to be more reliable. (Hint: They are officers at *major* insurance companies.)
Yeah, insurance companies never lie to agents! Considering that they need us for the next 4 years, and then they will have significantly less use for us.... what reason do they have to lie??
I get my info from sources other than just word of mouth!
The first source being the actual bill itself.
Second, (and a more understandable format) would be the Kiaser Health Institute which has one of the best summaries and overviews of the bill that is out there. Here is their Summary of the Bill.
I also get some info from RELIABLE news sources, but I still take them with a grain of salt; and yes, I do speak with the HI companies as well. While the HI companies do give some good info, always remember that they have their own agenda to promote and they are far from an advocate for us agents!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is incorrect to suggest you can buy qualified plans in or out of the exchange and the only difference will be subsidies available. What sense does that make? If I am going to buy the same plan at the same price, then why the hell would I want to buy a non-subsidy version of it? duh.
I never claimed that it made any sense. And why would you expect logic out of a discombobulated mess such as this bill.... or our idiots we elected up on capitol hill??
All of those guidelines quoted ad nauseum relate to QUALIFIED plans and qualified plans ONLY.
Yes, thats what we stated.
Non-qualified plans will be subject to penalty - correct.
They also will be subject to - HIGHER COMMISSIONS. That's my favorite part.
These will be known as "limited benefit" or "mini-med" plans. At some point, this will be all most people can afford, irrespective of those juicy subsidies.
There are NO regulations relating to what constitutes a non-qualified plan, which makes further discussion of this topic, moot. There is one sentence in the 2000+ page bill that relates to these plans. One sentence! So those of you who think you know what these plans will be like have no basis in fact for reaching those conclusions.
If we have no basis in fact for reaching our conclusions, then you dont either.
I dont doubt that non-qualified HI plans will pay higher commissions; I never said that they wouldnt.... actually I said the opposite in multiple posts.
But to classify them as "HUGE", when at the same time these companies will be taking a huge hit to their profit margin.... is a pipe dream... unless you consider 15% as earned huge...
From what I have been told by the HI companies (Executives included... ), there will be nothing "mini" about the non-qualified plans.
Basically, same benefits we are used to; but most likely less restrictions & it will be subject to a fine.
Yes there are basically just a few lines in the bill that speak of non-qualified HI plans, but it leaves it subject to future changes in regulation and jurisdiction by the HHS, the States, and Congress...
The biggest question will be can the HI companies price the NQ plans low enough to be attractive while still paying the fine???
This is a balancing act for them, because they will want to figure out the highest risk possible that they can take, and still keep the plans priced competitively.... plus, they have to compete with no annual or lifetime caps which will appeal to many consumers..
I still feel that there will be a lot of consumer sentiment against NQ HI plans because of the fine... even if it is still cheaper; no body likes paying a fine.
Plus, you can guarantee that HHS will be carrying out advertising campaigns pushing the exchanges...
Last edited: