I sell plans that offer the least amount of exposure. I'm not the amazing Keskin which means I can't stare at al client and let them know when they'll get diagnosed with something. I don't like this GR clause and I've called about it.
This is no coverage for reproductive organs in the first 6 months unless it's a life or death medical emergency. I don't think anyone wants the list of reproductive problems that would not be life or death if not treated in 24 hours. How 'bout an ovarian cyst? How 'bout stage 1 cervical cancer? What if the caner is benign? Uterine fibroids? Then it's definitely not life threatening.
This strikes personal for me. Without violating HIPAA lets just say that three females very close to me all had reproductive problems - all needed surgery, none were life or death. I couldn't imagine any of them calling me if they had the misfortune to have it diagnosed within the 1st six months. Go roll the dice on the craps table with your clients - not me. And if you think that clause isn't a big deal, then call GR and ask to remove it.
And if you don't think it's a big deal to your clients then please point out this clause to all female clients and see how many plans you sell. Any takers on people selling GR plans that go over this with female clients? What has their response been?
[/
John I've had a lot of these problems(hemorroids are a real pain in the .... )and the reason that the six month exclusion is there;in my opinion,is all of these aforeto mentioned problems are time-related type illnesses. In other words my dad had "roids" for years and just used a little "H" to soothe his misery,now it would have been pretty simple to go get it taken care of but he elected not to,he could have changed ins. in the interin and dooped the system, now on the other hand if he would have woke up one night with blood shootin out of his ass; this would have been an emergency situation and would have been taken care of by the new ins. co.
I have also seen young couples that KNOW there going to get pregnant and wants someone else to foot the bill that is like hitting a tree with your car and then wanting to get ins. from State Farm so that they can file a claim.
Matching the client with the right plan
- Thread starter somarco
- Start date
- 14,808
I agree the liability is extremely low. But the issue is why take on any liability if you don't have to.
- Thread starter
- #33
Interesting find, Borat.
What is most fascinating is the estimated cost of some of the mandates. Benefits dealing with mental health (where there is potential for abuse . . . no pun intended), IVF, Rx and dental.
You also gotta wonder about lobbyist activities in states where there is coverage for athletic trainers, breast reduction, coverage for grandchildren, denturists (what the heck is that?), Wilms tumor (must have been a legislator with a family member who had that disease), neurodevelopment therapy, and port wine stain elimination.
Most of the costs associated with the benefits are 1 - 3% but it is like they say in government. A billion here, a billion there, eventually you are talking real money.
A percent here, a percent there, eventually you are talking serious dollars.
What is most fascinating is the estimated cost of some of the mandates. Benefits dealing with mental health (where there is potential for abuse . . . no pun intended), IVF, Rx and dental.
You also gotta wonder about lobbyist activities in states where there is coverage for athletic trainers, breast reduction, coverage for grandchildren, denturists (what the heck is that?), Wilms tumor (must have been a legislator with a family member who had that disease), neurodevelopment therapy, and port wine stain elimination.
Most of the costs associated with the benefits are 1 - 3% but it is like they say in government. A billion here, a billion there, eventually you are talking real money.
A percent here, a percent there, eventually you are talking serious dollars.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
