Replacement, or not, question

[HoosierLife]

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?"

We have so many laws because there are so many lawbreakers in our society.

Every stupid law or ordinance should have some morons name and picture stamped next to it, that way we know who to blame.

Sometimes doing the right thing can get you into trouble nowadays.

 

[Life Hawk]

We have so many laws because there are so many lawbreakers in our society.

So the thought would be... no lawbreakers no laws? Laws are like locks, they are for honest people. I live near Chicago... they have about every gun law on the books you can think of, mind you keeping honest people from owning protection. Would you like to go down town with me on a hot July day and sit on someone's porch counting guns shots?

I don't want to wander into the back 40 on the subject, but far too often (far too often) what begins as a good law eventually imprisons the very ones it was supposed to protect.

 

[Newby]

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?

You are making an assumption that it is about the quanity of replacements in those states. I think the opposite. I think if anything laws like that would increase the amount of replacements since people don't have the risk of new contestability.

I think it is a consumer protection the state puts on insurance companies. Kentucky has done various consumer protections that other states don't do throughout the years.

For example They required that health insurance companies could not ask Health questions or do any health screening of applicants a number of years before Obamacare existed. That one blew up on them because all the unhealthy people from all around moved to Kentucky. And all the health insurance companies pulled out of the state except for two that raise the rates through the roof.

Single premium life rates are higher in Kentucky with many companies due to requirements that they put on insurance companies that other states do not have. Those requirements are waived if the insurance company has a physical office location located within the state.

There are a number of requirements in the funeral industry that are unique to Kentucky.

Overall Kentucky just has some really unique lawmakers. Hell they don't even admit Kentucky is a state at all. They call it a commonwealth not a state.

 

[HoosierLife]

So the thought would be... no lawbreakers no laws? Laws are like locks, they are for honest people. I live near Chicago... they have about every gun law on the books you can think of, mind you keeping honest people from owning protection. Would you like to go down town with me on a hot July day and sit on someone's porch counting guns shots?

I don't want to wander into the back 40 on the subject, but far too often (far too often) what begins as a good law eventually imprisons the very ones it was supposed to protect.

Well that makes my point. Chicago's lib gun laws are reactionary to the gun violence.

 

[rousemark]

You are making an assumption that it is about the quanity of replacements in those states. I think the opposite. I think if anything laws like that would increase the amount of replacements since people don't have the risk of new contestability.

I think it is a consumer protection the state puts on insurance companies. Kentucky has done various consumer protections that other states don't do throughout the years.

For example They required that health insurance companies could not ask Health questions or do any health screening of applicants a number of years before Obamacare existed. That one blew up on them because all the unhealthy people from all around moved to Kentucky. And all the health insurance companies pulled out of the state except for two that raise the rates through the roof.

Single premium life rates are higher in Kentucky with many companies do two requirements that they put on insurance companies that other states do not have. Those requirements are waived if the insurance company has a physical office location located within the state.

There are a number of requirements in the funeral industry that are unique to Kentucky.

Overall Kentucky just has some really unique lawmakers. Hell they don't even admit Kentucky is a state at all. They call it a commonwealth not a state.

It will not increase the quantity of replacements when companies quit accepting replacements which is what has happened with many companies. Plus, no one has eve said that regulator's actions don't often have unintended consequences. However, my reasoning had nothing to do with the number of replacements but simply they are keeping the insured from always being in a contestable state with their coverage.

 

[Newby]

It will not increase the quantity of replacements when companies quit accepting replacements which is what has happened with many companies. Plus, no one has eve said that regulator's actions don't often have unintended consequences. However, my reasoning had nothing to do with the number of replacements but simply they are keeping the insured from always being in a contestable state with their coverage.

Yes it will cut it down for the companies that don't replace. Cut it to zero. But the customer is just going to do the replacement with a different company that does allow it. State wide I would say it increases it.

I see it as a good consumer protection. I have never seen replacements as a negative thing, As long a they are done for the right reasons. If I am the consumer I would certainly not want to be locked in to a bad decision just because it was my 1st decision. But I'm not going to change over pennies. Whether I am the customer or the agent.

 

[Abrasax]

I get a lead card, visit prospect who is a GI prospect only, due to recent cancerous tumor being removed but excellent prognosis and otherwise quite healthy. Proceeds to tell me he has applied for a Globe policy but also has 2 policies with company A, one of which for a small amount he has had for years and one of which purchased recently which is a 3 year ROP. He tells me the Globe people called about a question he answered "no" to, he gave them the corrected answer and they said they would be back to him. He was adamant about waiting for Globe's response so I told him they would be declining him and I gave him a quote for a GI with company B and told him I would check back with him.
I checked back a week later, coincidently right after he got the letter from Globe declining him. He then proceeds to tell me he had been thinking about my quote and decided he was going to take my policy offering which had been intended to be in lieu of the Globe application, and cancelled the latest policy he had purchased from company A which I can certainly understand since my quote would give him twice the coverage for the same price and a 2 year ROP vs his current 32 months.
And the dilemma is, as you probably know where I'm going, company B does not allow replacements in my state. Company B said all they need to see is the box checked "no" on the application as to it being a replacement and my state insurance dept says they would probably still consider it to be a replacement even if I did it 5 years down the road, however as long as I got something signed stating he knows exactly what he is doing they would be fine with it as long as it was in his best interest. Approx. $1700AP, thoughts? Sorry so long!

You have to consider the type of situation where you even COULD hear anything about this. How is the state ever going to get involved and interrogate you? Who's going to complain? Your client?

I know what the letter of the law says but it sure doesn't look like there's anyone around to care.