Replacement, or not, question

[jdeasy]

Not like I am asking for "proof"... Just an answer since you say mine is wrong.

maybe I should spell it out for you? I will not engage you in conversation. If I want to talk to a company man I will call the company.

You say it's all the agent's fault. You will continue to blame the agents no matter if a dumptruck full of proof was dumped on you.

Are we clear now?

 

[rousemark]

maybe I should spell it out for you? I will not engage you in conversation. If I want to talk to a company man I will call the company.

You say it's all the agent's fault. You will continue to blame the agents no matter if a dumptruck full of proof was dumped on you.
.
Are we clear now?

In other words you don't know the answer. As for as conversing with me, you started the conversation with me in post #25.. I can't understand your obsession with me.

 

[NSRH]

maybe I should spell it out for you? I will not engage you in conversation. If I want to talk to a company man I will call the company.

You say it's all the agent's fault. You will continue to blame the agents no matter if a dumptruck full of proof was dumped on you.

Are we clear now?

Weren't you the gentleman that threatened another forum member with a phone call from a fraternal insurance company attorney? That forum member is still waiting on you to follow through with that threat.

 

[jdeasy]

Weren't you the gentleman that threatened another forum member with a phone call from a fraternal insurance company attorney? That forum member is still waiting on you to follow through with that threat.

That never happened. You tried to take that out of context. Either because you can't read or because you can read and are just being a weasel?

 

[jdeasy]

In other words you don't know the answer. As for as conversing with me, you started the conversation with me in post #25.. I can't understand your obsession with me.

There's not other words. And that is why I will not converse with you. You are dishonest.

I wasn't conversing with you in that post. I was just letting the poster you replied to know that you were wrong.

You were just being anti agent as always.

 

[rousemark]

There's not other words. And that is why I will not converse with you. You are dishonest.

I wasn't conversing with you in that post. I was just letting the poster you replied to know that you were wrong.

You were just being anti agent as always.

Gee... You asked me a direct question.. I would think that is conversing..You constantly, "Twist and turn, slowly, so very slowly, in the wind" As usual you resort to name calling when you can't back up your claim.. .

 

[Newby]

The state simply says if the policy is a replacement, the company will have to pick up the contestable period of the old policy. The company makes the decision if thy want to do that or not. Some do, some don't but it is not the state making the decision. The reason for it is some agents were constantly rolling their business for new first year commission causing the client to always be in the contestable period.

Are you sure about that? Have any links with where you got that from?

I think you are way off target. It's a consumer protection. It's the state requiring of insurance companies that if they want to write a new policy on a current insured they can not put them in a worse position in any way than they started. Pure and simple. It had nothing to do with Kentucky having more replacements than any other state. Kentucky has many consumer protections that they just make up on their own. They march to their own drum on many things.

There are two other states that I'm aware of that have that same protection for their residents. I think they all should.

 

[Thedude]

looks like a nice house to have someone collecting welfare from.

 

[rousemark]

Are you sure about that? Have any links with where you got that from?

I think you are way off target. It's a consumer protection. It's the state requiring of insurance companies that if they want to write a new policy on a current insured they can not put them in a worse position in any way than they started. Pure and simple. It had nothing to do with Kentucky having more replacements than any other state. Kentucky has many consumer protections that they just make up on their own. They march to their own drum on many things.

There are two other states that I'm aware of that have that same protection for their residents. I think they all should.

Most regulation comes into effect due to the abuse or perceived abuse of a situation. If that the abuse of the Life insurance consumer is not the reasoning behind the replacement regulation in KY and the other two states, then what is? You say it is a consumer protection issue. From what are the protecting the consumer with this regulation?

 

[Life Hawk]

I don't like agents who are all about rolling business, but I also do not like the state determining what is best for me. I understand the importance of certain regulations, but let's face it... look what we have with all the regulations we have. A mess at best, at worst a cesspool of lawyers and lazy bureaucrats needing to make another law to appear busy solving the problem of human nature.

As Dr. Phil would say... "And how's that working for you?"