What the Heck?

[jdeasy]

You turned someone in off pure hearsay. What if that lady said the same thing about you and I turned you in?

For all you know this agent could have been playing by the rules and he is just trying to make a living to take care of his family and feed his kids and now you've put him through an administrative nightmare during the worst economic recession since the great depression, off of what one old lady told you?

I hope his kids don't starve because of hearsay. Tuff guy.

No, it wasn't off hearsay. He left her information on PDP plans and his card with note that he would be back the next week. I called the guy myself and asked him if he knew he was breaking the rules to doorknock. He said his he was new to the game and that was how his boss told him to do it. I told him that he should not be doing and to have talk with his boss. He said that I wasn't his boss and I wasn't who was paying him and he was going to continue to do as his boss told him. So, yes, I reported him to Medicare just as i told him I would.

If that makes someone a "tuff guy" in your book, I plead guilty.

But, if that lady said that about me and turned me in, I would have a signed SOA or signed BRC to back me up and I wouldn't have any problems.

You really should learn the rules before you jump the gun, amateur.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's all about "hearsay"

Hey retread I heard you were "skirting" the rules yourself. Therefore, I feel obligated and will turn your "ass" in. I am very "suspicious" of you.

Don't you see how reckless and absurd that sounds?

Bottom line:
If some old lady told me someone came a knockin' on the door selling PDP's, the agent is the last thing I'm worried about. I'm more concerned with helping clients, taking applications, getting referrals. You spend your time taddel telling off of "he said she said" BS. "awwww he knocked on your door, he's not supposed to, I'm tellingggggggggggg"

I guess that's the difference between me and you. PRODUCTION. I don't worry about other agents when it comes to hearsay. I'm busy WORKING. I can't control what other agents do, I don't have the proof or the time.

You tell me, what produces the most good?
1) Helping people with their insurance needs and answering their questions or
2) Taddel Telling over some hearsay BS

There is only so much time in the day. You can spend 10min calling the DOI snitching off of hearsay or you can spend 10mins looking for someone to help. Its your life.

I would be very surprised if your production is even close to half of mine or retread's. You don't know what you are talking about and you, obviously, have no respect for rules and the proper way to do things.

 

[TristanTLC]

If I'm following the rules, I don't care if you turn me in; I can prove that I was following the rules. I was turned in by a rival agent for an estate case a while back. He called IL DOI and said I was rebating on a policy because I told the client I could rebate them all their attorney expenses for the transaction. IL DOI called NC DOI and NC DOI paid me a visit. I showed them the Trust and the attorney signature from Florida (where rebating is legal) and NC DOI left merrily on their way. It took about 10 minutes of my time, because I had all my paperwork in place and followed the rules.

I never care if someone calls me out, if I'm following the rules I don't care. So your "hearsay" argument is completely flawed. Even our judicial system will let you take someone to trial based off of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Focus LTC]

Even had one lady last week tell me about an agent door knocking in the neighborhood for PDP. She gave me his card and I turned his ass in.

Changing your story now huh? Surprise, surprise.
Are you mad because I made you look like a hack?
Don't take it personally. You have something really special there.

For the record I don't break the rules, I don's sell MA's or PDP's, I don't refer them out either. That market is dead. CMS killed it. Anyone that still sells them is hack too.

I just think it's petty to snitch the way you do. I can tell you get high off of it. You probably feel real good about yourself afterwards and you want to high 5 all your friends but you don't have any. It's very immature.

What else I can help you with?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If I'm following the rules, I don't care if you turn me in; I can prove that I was following the rules. I was turned in by a rival agent for an estate case a while back. He called IL DOI and said I was rebating on a policy because I told the client I could rebate them all their attorney expenses for the transaction. IL DOI called NC DOI and NC DOI paid me a visit. I showed them the Trust and the attorney signature from Florida (where rebating is legal) and NC DOI left merrily on their way. It took about 10 minutes of my time, because I had all my paperwork in place and followed the rules.

I never care if someone calls me out, if I'm following the rules I don't care. So your "hearsay" argument is completely flawed. Even our judicial system will let you take someone to trial based off of circumstantial evidence.

And this type of thing is exactly what I'm talking about. I've been accused by another agent of wrong doing and I've had to state my case and provide the paperwork to the DOI and the quickly left me alone once they saw I was in compliance. But at the end of the day, it was still a headache and a burden. And it was all over some hearsay.

 

[jmhopkins40]

No, it wasn't off hearsay. He left her information on PDP plans and his card with note that he would be back the next week. I called the guy myself and asked him if he knew he was breaking the rules to doorknock. He said his he was new to the game and that was how his boss told him to do it. I told him that he should not be doing and to have talk with his boss. He said that I wasn't his boss and I wasn't who was paying him and he was going to continue to do as his boss told him. So, yes, I reported him to Medicare just as i told him I would.

If that makes someone a "tuff guy" in your book, I plead guilty.

But, if that lady said that about me and turned me in, I would have a signed SOA or signed BRC to back me up and I wouldn't have any problems.

You really should learn the rules before you jump the gun, amateur.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -



I would be very surprised if your production is even close to half of mine or retread's. You don't know what you are talking about and you, obviously, have no respect for rules and the proper way to do things.

SOUNDS FISHY...next time you may want to consider telling the whole story upfront, rather than after you were busted...nice try though!

 

[Russ]

Just my personal thoughts. If no one cares...that's fine.

Sorry, I'm not calling another agent to inform him he was breaking the rules by cold-door knocking for PDP's and then turning him in to Medicare. I've got more important things to worry about. Stirring the kettle like this is beyond my focus of concern.

I'm not going to sit here and say I've played by the rules from start to finish in my 25 years in this business. I don't think any insurance agent has if they've been in the business that long.

Have I ever done anything to purposely hurt someone? No. But I have better things to do with my time then turn someone in over a PDP plan that pays a whopping $40-$50 in commission.

I think the rules CMS has come up with over PDP's is silly...actually beyond silly. It's absurd. I have to wait for them to bring it up? Yeah...right.

But, I'm not calling any agent over something like this or Medicare.

 

[jdeasy]

SOUNDS FISHY...next time you may want to consider telling the whole story upfront, rather than after you were busted...nice try though!

I did tell the whole story up front. Nor was I busted. I just another rule breaker try to defend the first louse. I had to paint a better picture because he couldn't comprehend the first time. He still uses it to try and be a petty little jackass.

No one is going to get in trouble that's following the rules. No matter how the enablers try to spin it. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution, your choice.

 

[alphawave2k]

Children...chilfren!!!! CHILDREN!!!!
Now that I got your attention, I just want to chip in my 2 cents of ranting in this food fight....because it looks like you guys are having too much fun.
CMS and the Govt rules are ludicrous and ridiculous (that might be redundant). There are a lot of well meaning agents who want to help seniors, just as there are a lot of rogue agents who could give a flip and just want to get their commissions.
I for one, am very fearful of selling any of these products, though I've gone through the pain of getting the AHIP and UHC certifications in addition to AARP. I am fearful of not doing the right thing for the client....forget about our Govt. They are screwing each and every one of us, unless you are part of the club. Look at our deficits and the reckless throwing around of money. It used to be "a billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money"..they have inserted their own multiplier now into that saying. They are engaging in criminal activity daily under the guise of leading our country. Another subject matter/another thread topic/another time.
But meanwhile back at the ranch:. How ridiculous is it that you have to have a piece of paper signed saying the customer wants to speak to the agent about these type of plans. If the theme changes, from what I understand, you need to have another SOA form signed. This is the lame attempt from bureaucrats of enforcing "order" and "ethical" behavior into the sale process and have agents behave better? Give me a break! And still the bad agents are ignoring these rules, while good agents don't need this...that's the reason good agents ain't playing in that sandbox.
And yes, these products are a maze of options...that's why they will fail. Each state has a different plan (OK same as health insurance), and each county might have a different form and plan available, and maybe a different premium., not to mention the myriad of options within just one carrier....nightmare time
Now I have a great appreciation I hear vets in the senior segment of the forum saying...fugget about it...let me sell the Med Supps. I will emulate these knowledgeable vets, and focus on learning that segment (basically health insurance for >65 segment) since these are the plans that will live on, and seniors do need them
Disclaimer: The author of this op ed piece, may or may not know what he's talking about, therefore he is qualified to offer his opinion.
Alfredo.

 

[Professor Leads]

If I was given this referral I would call. If they tried to charge me with a crime, I envision the proceedings playing out like this scene from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged:

One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges.
"You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defence," he announced. Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:
"I have no defence."
"Do you --" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"What?"
"I do not recognise this court's right to try me."
"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."
"I do not recognise my action as a crime."
"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."
"I do not recognise your right to control the sale of my Metal."
"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"
"No. I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretence which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.
"Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.
"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defence is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."
"But, Mr. Rearden, the law provides specifically that you are to be given an opportunity to present your side of the case and to defend yourself."
"A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke. The law, by which you are trying me, holds that there are no principles, that I have no rights and that you may do with me whatever you please. Very well. Do it." "Mr. Rearden, the law which you are denouncing is based on the highest principle - the principle of the public good."
"Who is the public? What does it hold as its good? There was a time when men believed that 'the good' was a concept to be defined by a code of moral values and that no man had the right to seek his good through the violation of the rights of another. If it is now believed that my fellow men may sacrifice me in any manner they please for the sake of whatever they deem to e their own good, if they believe that they may seize my property simply because they need it - well, so does any burglar. There is only this difference: the burglar does not ask me to sanction his act."

A group of seats at the side of the courtroom was reserved for the prominent visitors who had come from New York to witness the trial. Dagny sat motionless and her face showed nothing but a solemn attention, the attention of listening with the knowledge that the flow of his words would determine the course of her life. Eddie Willers sat beside her. James Taggart had not come. Paul Larkin sat hunched forward, his face thrust out, pointed like an animal's muzzle, sharpened by a look of fear now turning into malicious hatred. Mr. Mowen, who sat beside him, was a man of greater innocence and smaller understanding; his fear was of a simpler nature; he listened in bewildered indignation and he whispered to Larkin, "Good God, now he's done it! Now he'll convince the whole country that all businessmen are enemies of the public good!"

"Are we to understand," asked the judge, "that you hold your own interests above the interests of the public?"
"I hold that such a question can never arise except in a society of cannibals."
"What ... do you mean?"
"I hold that there is no clash of interests among men who do not demand the unearned and do not practice human sacrifices."
"Are we to understand that if the public deems it necessary to curtail your profits, you do not recognise its right to do so?"
"Why, yes, I do. The public may curtail my profits any time it wishes - by refusing to buy my product."
"We are speaking of ... other methods."
"Any other method of curtailing profits is the method of looters - and I recognise it as such."
"Mr. Rearden, this is hardly the way to defend yourself."
"I said that I would not defend myself."
"But this is unheard of! Do you realise the gravity of the charge against you?"
"I do not care to consider it."
"Do you realise the possible consequences of your stand?"
"Fully."
"It is the opinion of this court that the facts presented by the prosecution seem to warrant no leniency. The penalty which this court has the power to impose on you is extremely severe."
"Go ahead."
"I beg your pardon?"
"Impose it."
The three judges looked at one another. Then their spokesman turned back to Rearden. "This is unprecedented," he said.
"It is completely irregular," said the second judge. "The law requires you submit to a plea in your own defence. Your only alternative is to state for the record that you throw yourself upon the mercy of the court."
"I do not."
"But you have to."
"Do you mean that what you expect from me is some sort of voluntary action?"
"Yes."
"I volunteer nothing."
"But the law demands that the defendant's side be represented on the record."
"Do you mean that you need my help to make this procedure legal?"
"Well, no ... yes ... that is, to complete the form."
"I will not help you."
The third and youngest judge, who had acted as prosecutor snapped impatiently, "This is ridiculous and unfair! Do you want to let it look as if a man of your prominence had been railroaded without a --" He cut himself off short. Somebody at the back of the courtroom emitted a long whistle.
"I want," said Rearden gravely, "to let the nature of this procedure appear exactly for what it is. If you need my help to disguise it - I will not help you."
"But we are giving you a chance to defend yourself - and it is you who are rejecting it."
"I will not help you to pretend that I have a chance. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of righteousness where rights are not recognised. I will not help you to preserve an appearance of rationality by entering a debate in which a gun is the final argument. I will not help you to pretend that you are administering justice."
"But the law compels you to volunteer a defence!"
There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.
"That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen," said Rearden gravely, "and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition - which you cannot force - that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there - I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine - I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me - use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action."
The eldest judge leaned forward across the table and his voice became suavely derisive: "You speak as if you were fighting for some sort of principle, Mr. Rearden, but what you're actually fighting for is only your property, isn't it?"
"Yes, of course. I am fighting for my property. Do you know the kind of principle that represents?"
"You pose as a champion of freedom, but it's only the freedom to make money that you're after."
"Yes, of course. All I want is the freedom to make money. Do you know what that freedom implies?"
"Surely, Mr. Rearden, you wouldn't want your attitude to be misunderstood. You wouldn't want to give support to the widespread impression that you are a man devoid of social conscience, who feels no concern for the welfare of his fellows and works for nothing but his own profit."
"I work for nothing but my own profit. I earn it."
There was a gasp, not of indignation, but of astonishment, in the crowd behind him and silence from the judges he faced. He went on calmly:
"No, I do not want my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record. I am in full agreement with the facts of everything said about me in the newspapers - with the facts, but not with the evaluation. I work for nothing but my own profit - which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage - and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner. I am rich and I am proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with - voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people - the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologise for my ability - I refuse to apologise for my success - I refuse to apologise for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code - and I will accept no other. I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow men than you can ever hope to accomplish - but I will not say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognise the good of others as a justification for their seizure of my property or their destruction of my life. I will not say that the good of others was the purpose of my work - my own good was my purpose, and I despise the man who surrenders his. I could say to you that you do not serve the public good - that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices - that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the right of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction. I could say to you that you will and can achieve nothing but universal devastation - as any looter must, when he runs out of victims. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy that I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!"

The crowd burst into applause.

 

[xrac]

Just my personal thoughts. If no one cares...that's fine.

Sorry, I'm not calling another agent to inform him he was breaking the rules by cold-door knocking for PDP's and then turning him in to Medicare. I've got more important things to worry about. Stirring the kettle like this is beyond my focus of concern.

I'm not going to sit here and say I've played by the rules from start to finish in my 25 years in this business. I don't think any insurance agent has if they've been in the business that long.

Have I ever done anything to purposely hurt someone? No. But I have better things to do with my time then turn someone in over a PDP plan that pays a whopping $40-$50 in commission.

I think the rules CMS has come up with over PDP's is silly...actually beyond silly. It's absurd. I have to wait for them to bring it up? Yeah...right.

But, I'm not calling any agent over something like this or Medicare.

Russ, you stated exactly how I feel. This CMS stuff is stupid and actually hurts the consumer but that is government for you.

 

[retread]

It's all about "hearsay"

Hey retread I heard you were "skirting" the rules yourself. Therefore, I feel obligated and will turn your "ass" in. I am very "suspicious" of you.

Don't you see how reckless and absurd that sounds?

Bottom line:
If some old lady told me someone came a knockin' on the door selling PDP's, the agent is the last thing I'm worried about. I'm more concerned with helping clients, taking applications, getting referrals. You spend your time taddel telling off of "he said she said" BS. "awwww he knocked on your door, he's not supposed to, I'm tellingggggggggggg"

I guess that's the difference between me and you. PRODUCTION. I don't worry about other agents when it comes to hearsay. I'm busy WORKING. I can't control what other agents do, I don't have the proof or the time.

You tell me, what produces the most good?
1) Helping people with their insurance needs and answering their questions or
2) Taddel Telling over some hearsay BS

There is only so much time in the day. You can spend 10min calling the DOI snitching off of hearsay or you can spend 10mins looking for someone to help. Its your life.

You are trying to build a straw house argument. I am not "tattling" on other agents. I am reporting an incident that occured in which an independant agent broke the rules and signed up a client of mine in the process, causing me to lose a long time client under the pretense they were from the carrier. I found this out when I got my clearance from the carrier to make the call because I was now notified officially that she had received her termination letter. I waited for the official word by the rules.... this other agent didn't. The information I gathered came directly from the client, not some guesswork or third hand report.

I don't just shoot from the hip. If I have clear evidence of a rule violation, I will report it. You are not even in my state... what are you worried about? Guilty conscience?