My Assurant (Consumer - not Agent) Story

[pipedream]

One additional thought. The lifetime maximum per person coverage of $6,000,000 in our old policy and $8,000,000 in the new improved policy now seems like a (almost) complete joke. You agents know, the insurance company knows, and now I know....no policy will ever stay in effect long enough for a covered insured to reach that amount of benefit.

The new 7 plus pages of listed exclusions (compared to 1 1/2 pages previously) also guarantees the maximum benefit will never be paid on behalf of an insured by Assurant - though it probably sells policies to tout it as if the benefit is there if needed.

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

One additional thought. The lifetime maximum per person coverage of $6,000,000 in our old policy and $8,000,000 in the new improved policy now seems like a (almost) complete joke. You agents know, the insurance company knows, and now I know....no policy will ever stay in effect long enough for a covered insured to reach that amount of benefit.

The new 7 plus pages of listed exclusions (compared to 1 1/2 pages previously) also guarantees the maximum benefit will never be paid on behalf of an insured by Assurant - though it probably sells policies to tout it as if the benefit is there if needed.

That's why some of us no longer sell Assurant.

You are justifiably upset. It is a horrendous situation. Instead of directing your displeasure at Assurant, perhaps your legislators in the Commonwealth of PA may be more appropriate.

The benefit is there if it's needed.

How much "profit" have they made on your policy so far?

 

[pipedream]

That's why some of us no longer sell Assurant.

How much "profit" have they made on your policy so far?

The policy was not sold with a "you are covered unless we don't make a profit on your individual policy" clause.

 

[somarco]

I believe this is will eventually cause changes to the "for-profit" system that we have now.

There is a common misconception among those who believe the MSM is gospel that profits are what is causing high insurance premiums.

Not so.

Most (if not all) the HMO's are not for profit and many of the Blues are as well. (At one time, all of them were).

Profit margins run 4 - 6% on health insurance so take that out of the equation and what do you have?

Not much wiggle room.

Carriers pay out 80 - 85% of every dollar they take in for benefits. About 4% on average go for premium taxes, another 8 - 10% for overhead.

Profits have nothing to do with it.

outcry for a national risk pool for catastrophic coverage

For this to happen, you have to unwind 80 years or so of legislation that transfers regulation of insurance to the states. If you understand how poorly Medicare, Social Security and all the other federal programs operate, you really don't want them to take over insurance.

no policy will ever stay in effect long enough for a covered insured to reach that amount of benefit.

Some policies stay in effect for years and some, not many, but some will breach the lifetime max.

So what is your beef? Would it be better if more people ran out of insurance?

BTW, you can do that with some of the newer Time plans . . .

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

The policy was not sold with a "you are covered unless we don't make a profit on your individual policy" clause.

No doubt.

But as you have already acknowledged, they have paid out much more in claims than they've collected in premiums.

While not a guarantee, past claims is the best indicator of future claims. It's not "pro bono", there is a "quid pro quo".

How many claims like yours do you think they could handle, and remain in business?

There is no doubt that your situation in very difficult.

 

[STIBROKER]

I was not really complaining about the agent - just expressing surprise that agents here talked like they keep in touch with their health insurance clients.

Some actually do....most of the time I am helping clients with claims and thats why they call me.....I have also been in the fortis boat...

as well as work on my own family's claims....

 

[ijerome]

Didn't many agents dump Golden Rule 3-4 yrs ago for the same reason: block underwriting, screwed up commissions etc? And recently Blue Cross of CA. and PacificCare are being sued for a billion $ each for recinding policies and not paying claims. The agents knocking mini-med should not generalize. There are several good ones out there, and some clients, uninsurable or "can't afford", should not be excluded. Better off having something then nothing and much better off with a good agent who will search for the good plans.

 

[Crabcake Johnny]

Agents who want to look into dirty histories don't want to start researching companies like Humana, Golden Rule or Aetna, etc..trust me.

There's plenty of mud in this industry to be slung around. If you're familiar with something called "google" and you have the time it's rather easy to expose carriers in general.

To label one "better" than the other regarding rate increases or claims shows extreme naivity.

I see we have some new flavors of the year....until a little more time passes.

 

[somarco]

dump Golden Rule 3-4 yrs ago for the same reason: block underwriting

You are confusing block underwriting for tracking and rating purposes with closing a block in order to re-underwrite block policyholders in an attempt to kick out those who are no longer insurable.

A few years ago the LA DOI refused to allow GR to issue or renew a particular policy form. They had no choice but to non-renew those policyholders.

The odd thing is, they filed the same policy form under the UHC flag and it was approved.

BX,KP and HealthNet have had issues due to aggressive post issue underwriting in CA. Time has had similar problems in several states. Some of the cases, at least the ones I have reviewed, have involved fraud on the part of the agent, the applicant, or both. Most, if not all, of the rest were caused by the failure of the applicant to read and comprehend the pre-existing condition limits of the policy.

Insurance is one of the most tightly regulated industries. Carriers do not capriciously raise rates, cancel policies or deny claims . . . despite what you may read or hear from the left wing press.

 

[pipedream]

So what is your beef?

That's just it...I don't have a beef other than Assurant changing the 2008 calendar year for meeting the deductible from 12 months to 8 months. Suddenly, 8 months constitutes a calendar year and as of 9/1/08 there is $1,200 more in deductibles.

Other than that....I am merely lamenting.

The other side of the coin is that we weren't looking for a cheaper policy now that we are past the large medical expenses of the past few years. We didn't say, "Our major medical expenses are done, you paid for them and now we are going to look for a cheaper policy." We have a sense of fair play and feel we owed it to Assurant to stay in the plan because it has served us in our time of need. We were planning to stay with them, no matter how high the premiums went if the deductible had stayed at $5,500.

Would it be better if more people ran out of insurance?

Would you feel better if the prospect of becoming uninsured and possibly uninsurable was A-OK with me? If I would not try to figure out what to do next by asking questions?

What do unhealthy health insurance agents do when their policies are discontinued?