John McCain, presumptive GOP nominee for president, laid out his health care policy yesterday, and insurers are likely to embrace its hands-off approach.

In general terms, McCain wants to spur competition among insurers, increase consumer choice and reduce government intervention and regulation. He would do this, in large part, by allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines and by severing the employer-health insurance link (which earns him points in my book). He would redirect the tax break that employers currently receive to individuals, who would then be able to buy individual coverage on their own (which they could take from job to job).

McCain would also create a “guaranteed access plan” for those can’t find coverage through traditional methods, but there is some early skepticism about this ill-defined element of his proposal.

“The plan isn't expected to make a major dent in the number of uninsured Americans, and questions remain about how the plan would help older, sicker people who can't find insurance on the open market,” says the Wall Street Journal.

[Hat tip: WSJ Health Blog]

Posted by Jeb Foster at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

As you may have heard, the U.S. Senate passed the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act yesterday. Once through the house, President Bush is expected to sign it. The law will have a huge effect on private health insurance—and may even hasten its demise.

The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, 10 years in the making, is meant to encourage people to use genetic screening in order to detect latent medical problems, before they become more difficult to treat. The new law says that employers and insurers cannot deny employment or insurance to anyone who has opted to take a test, regardless of what the results show.

What does this mean for private insurance?

The adverse selection problem becomes huge. In the context of insurance, adverse selection describes a situation where, as a result of exclusive information, one party (either the insured or the insurer) has an advantage, and uses that advantage to the detriment of the other party.

Here’s an example of adverse selection will work under the new law:

If you, Joe Sixpack, get genetically tested and the results reveal that you’re predisposed to a bunch of different medical conditions, you’re likely going to run out at buy as much insurance as you can, and this new law will enable you to omit mention of your test results.

Insurance is something that people buy because they can’t predict the future. But in the case of genetic testing, a consumer can, to a certain degree, predict his future.

So, this is the nightmare scenario for private insurers:

1. Everyone gets genetically tested.
2. Every sick (or soon to be sick) person buys insurance, and subsequently racks up gi-normous medical bills.
3. Insurers pay through the nose and are forced to raise premiums for everyone.
4. Healthy people, feeling the sting of higher premiums, drop their coverage. (Their genetic crystal ball says they don’t need health insurance, anyway.)
5. Insurers are left with a bunch of sick (read: expensive) policyholders (and are forced to keep enrolling them).
6. Private health insurance goes belly-up.

Anyone have a more sanguine scenario to share?

Posted by Jeb Foster at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

A year or so ago, I wrote about Sen. Ron Wyden’s, D-Ore., health care plan—a proposal alarming in its simplicity, feasibility and overall evenhandedness.

Despite these liabilities, Wyden’s campaign is getting some traction and is even airing the following ad, which calls attention to the most irritating part of our current health care system: the fact that, for most Americans with insurance, coverage is tied to the workplace. This tie—a leftover from WWII wage controls—has the effect of stifling not only personal freedom, but also the entire American economy.

Check it out.

http://www.standtallforamerica.com/page/s/careyoukeep

Posted by Jeb Foster at 01:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

I’ve been reading a lot of blogs written by economists recently, and their manner of looking at the world is starting to influence mine.

In Econ 101, we learn that the best way to steer individual and collective behavior in a capitalist system is to offer incentives (carrots) and/or disincentives (sticks).

Here is the current incentive structure as it pertains to health care. As you can see, it’s a mess:

People: Incentives to be overweight and unhealthy
The Uninsured: Incentives to stay uninsured
The Insured: Incentives to get every treatment in the book
Doctors: Incentives to provide more health care rather than keep people healthy
Insurers: Incentives to insure only healthy people, drop unhealthy ones
Pharmaceutical companies: Incentives to sell, um, pharmaceuticals, regardless of their usefulness, cost, efficacy
Lawyers: Incentives to file, um, lawsuits
Politicians: Incentives to fund campaigns with money from special interests (insurers, trial lawyers, etc.)

It seems, then, that to heal our broken health care system, we need to create the right incentives for each of the above stakeholders.

There. Problem solved. :)

Posted by Jeb Foster at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

Everyone is talking about the recent Dutch study showing that overweight people and smokers are cheaper to treat in the long run than are healthy people.

The reason?

Healthy people live longer. Longer to rack up more medical bills. Obese people and smokers die earlier.

Responding to the survey, Atlantic Monthly blogger Megan McArdle wrote:

Dying young, even of an expensive disease, turns out to be cheaper than living a long, healthy life. If you really want to save money, you should probably start taxing fitness club memberships.

But is it really wrong-headed? Should health insurers start offering discounts to people who smoke a pack a day and dine only at Hardee’s?

It’s depends, as McArdle points out, on who’s paying for the health care.

“Dying young is expensive for [health insurers],” McArdle writes. “People who live a long time die on Medicare's dime.”

So, health insurers, take note: It’s still in your best interest to encourage people to quit smoking and lose a few pounds.

Via The Consumerist

Posted by Jeb Foster at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

Between the high political tide and Jeb's thought-provoking posts on U.S. health care, I've been paying more attention to related tales and tidbits.

Here's the stuff I've been pouring over today.

Forcing Young People Into the System Powerline

The least-acknowledged fact in the present debate over health care is that many millions of Americans have no good reason to buy health insurance. This is especially true of single young people, above all single men. ... Thus, the crocodile tears that are shed over "the uninsured" are by no means entirely genuine. One of the basic purposes of just about anyone's "health care plan" is to find a way to force those millions of young, single people to pay for the health care required by their elders.

Try Living Uninsured LA Times

[B]eing uninsured is these days -- a character flaw. It's how you can pay taxes, volunteer, donate to public radio and still be considered a drain on society.

Doyle's Idea: Equalized Insurance Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

The proposal hinges on prohibiting health insurance companies from setting rates for small businesses based on the health of their employees. That could lower costs for businesses with older workers or workers with medical problems, while increasing costs for those with healthy, younger employees.

Employer-Linked Health Insurance—Time to Go? InsureMe Agent Blog

Many businesses, particularly the very small and the very large, have the most to gain from being released from their insurance obligations. Without having to pay health care costs for aging workers, they would have more cash on hand to compete with overseas companies, which have never had to provide coverage for their workers.

Lots of health insurance goodness on this Monday afternoon, something I suspect will be the norm throughout the year.

Posted by Megan Mahan at 02:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

President Bush didn’t offer much that was new or ambitious regarding health care in his State of the Union address last night.

Bush once again called for changing the tax code to encourage individuals to get coverage. (His tax break would replace the one currently available to businesses that provide coverage for their employees.)

While I support plans that would sever the employer-insurance link (health insurance ought to be portable, like every other kind of policy) Bush’s plan wouldn’t do much else to change the status quo.

“Because the majority of the uninsured have low enough incomes that they pay little or no taxes, a tax deduction will not make insurance that much more affordable,” said Julie Rovner, National Public Radio’s health policy correspondent.

“The most optimistic estimate for the plan says it would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by less than 20 percent.”

Bush’s conservatism leads him to oppose any plan that would give more power to the federal government. The way to make insurance more accessible, he believes, is by allowing for more consumer choice and educating people about their options.

“The Congress must also expand health savings accounts, create Association Health Plans for small businesses, promote health information technology,” Bush said.

I support these initiatives, but I don’t think consumer choice and greater access to information will have a transformative effect on our health care system. It will help, sure, but it’s sort of like adding windows to a house that still needs a roof.

That is, we need comprehensive changes to our health care system if it’s to allow greater coverage.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

As any casual observer of the Democratic primary can see, the insurance industry is everyone’s favorite punching bag. Each candidate—with the exception of perhaps Hillary Clinton—struggles to land a bigger punch than the next guy.

Here’s a fairly typical statement from John Edwards, one of the top three contenders for the Democratic nomination:

The American health care system is broken because wealthy insurance corporations and their lobbyists have rigged the system against the American people.

Ouch.

Continue reading "An Industry in the Crosshairs" »

Posted by Jeb Foster at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

We've spent a large chunk of this week brainstorming new video ideas and creating scripts. Part of what we're doing involves ad spots and YouTube, which I'm sure some of you have been thinking about too.

So, for this Friday's post, I thought I'd have you watch a few of my favorite Trigon health insurance commercials. They're good clean fun, and when you look at the frequency with which these videos are viewed, you can only imagine the positive affect they've had on the Trigon brand.

Check 'em out, mull 'em over, and have a great weekend!

Posted by Megan Mahan at 03:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

The HSA honeymoon phase is long over. Even the most enthusiastic of initial supporters—the ones who thought they, coupled with high-deductible health plans, would encourage patient responsibility and subsequently cure our national health care ills—can’t find too much to be excited about these days.

And HSA critics are taking ever tougher stances. According to the Wall Street Journal, Democratic presidential candidate (and current governor of New Mexico) Bill Richardson would abolish them altogether if he got the opportunity.

“These are a step backward,” he said at a Kaiser Family Foundation forum yesterday. “They put working families at risk. Most families cannot afford to pay the … out of pocket costs.”

While other Democratic candidates have not, to my knowledge, come out in favor of an outright ban, HSAs don’t figure prominently in any of their proposed health care fixes.

So is this the beginning of the end? Can HSAs ever live up to their promise?

Posted by Jeb Foster at 08:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

Grim news regarding California's top insurer, which set financial goals and bonuses based on money saved from dropping individual policyholders.

The LA Times reports that Health Net, Inc. avoided paying over $35 million in medical expenses by rescinding roughly 1,600 policies between 2000 and 2006. Documents disclosed on Thursday, November 8 also revealed that Health Net paid its senior analyst $20,000 in bonuses, which were tied to her meeting or exceeding annual goals for policy revocation.

The information regarding bonuses was uncovered in an arbitration hearing brought by Patsy Bates, a hairdresser whose coverage was rescinded in the middle of chemo treatments for breast cancer. (Bates is suing for $6 million in compensation, plus damages.

Big stories like this aren't good for the health insurance industry, especially in an election year. If Americans can't trust private health insurers to look after their well-being, they're going to gravitate to other alternatives, such as the universal health care some presidential candidates are encouraging.

What's the solution? How do you as an agent quell the fears of individuals who are on the fence about private health insurance?

[via]

Posted by Megan Mahan at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

This week, the Senate received a warning: global warming is stirring up health problems and will continue to worsen.

Witnesses at the hearing cited the 35,000 deaths in the 2003 European heat wave, the spread of the West Nile virus to 47 states (unseen in the U.S. eight years ago), and most recently the droughts, heat waves, and massive wildfires.

Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that it's not a question of whether there will be ill health effects from global warming, but of who, when, where and how.

The director also presented a CDC chart showing that rising temperatures are likely to affect public health not only in the form of heat waves, but of severe weather, increased air pollution, water contamination and disease, and disruptions to food supply—yielding increases in cardiovascular disease, malaria and dengue, among other afflictions.

We've seen the property-casualty industry start to react to global warming; will the health and life industry follow suit?

[Related]: Lloyd's: Denial Not Just a River in Egypt

Posted by Megan Mahan at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Allow me to initiate a discussion that’s only tangentially related to selling insurance.

I'll start with a question: Would you be willing to get medical treatment at your local Wal-Mart or Target?

So-called “retail clinics” are popping up in strip malls and box stores across the country. Taking up as much floor space as the video section and located adjacent to the mini Taco Bell, they offer care to anyone who walks in and is able to pay. Most of the care, it seems, is provided by nurse practitioners, not doctors.

States, meanwhile, are struggling to keep up. They want to ensure that there is some oversight and that the bargain-basement care is up to snuff.

What do you think of this trend? Is this the wonderful free market at work, offering vital a service where there is currently a lack?

Or should mega stores like Target and Wal-Mart just stick to selling plastic stuff at rock-bottom prices?

And, to bring this back into the insurance realm, what do you think health insurers will make of these retail clinics?

Related:
AMA Calls for Investigation of Retail Clinics
States Roll Out Retail-Clinic Rules

Posted by Jeb Foster at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

There’s a movement afoot, people are breaking away from group health care and setting out on their own to find individual policies. The reasons are varied, but the fact is people are leaving the group marketplace and they have to go somewhere for their health insurance needs.

As a result more and more carriers are beginning to offer individual health plans.

This is new territory for many health insurance agents and brokers. Recently, I attended a seminar given by a major insurance brokerage firm. And the speakers offered some ways to react to this boom in individual health.

Develop a strategy. Don’t just offer health insurance; offer people a three-year healthcare, or wellness, plan. Healthcare costs are rising. Offer them solutions to keep their expenses under control by educating them on preventative measures.

Differentiate. Become an expert in consumer driven health plans tax strategy. Become a wellness expert. Leverage online tools that set you apart from competitors.

Be consultative. There are many insurance agents to choose from. If you can offer your clients advice, you are offering something different. Listen more. Talk less.

In a changing industry, the best advice is to learn how to roll with the punches and take advantage by filling the holes that those changes will inevitably leave.

Posted by maribeth neelis at 03:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

It seems we’re into a new type of thematic blogging here at the Agent Blog. Last week’s posts dealt primarily with e-mail and this week’s with health care. This post will explore the concept of employer-linked health insurance.

Whenever I get to thinking about it, the less sense it makes. Why should people get health insurance through the workplace? They don’t get their car or homeowner’s insurance from their employer, and as far as I know, there is no one lobbying for this to change. It would be weird to get a new auto insurance policy every time you switched jobs. Yet there are passionate advocates out there for keeping the link between your health care and your paycheck. Why?

Continue reading "Employer-Linked Health Insurance--Time to Go?" »

Posted by Jeb Foster at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Thought-provoking health care tidbit du jour:

Make sure to leave your two cents via comments!

Posted by Megan Mahan at 03:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
 

Medicare will no longer pay for illnesses, infections, or injuries resulting from hospital errors, according to a new rule announced just this month. The initiative is aimed at improving the accuracy of Medicare's payment for hospital patients receiving acute care, as well as to encourage hospitals to improve the quality of their services.

Bob Vineyard over at InsureBlog muses about the decision, saying:

On one hand, I agree. Why should the taxpayer pay for things where the hospital (or other negligent party) is clearly liable.

On the other hand, who is going to decide the liability issue? Are the hospitals going to readily admit their wrong? Will the patient be caught in the middle?

The AP article states that hospitals will be expected to pick up the tab for care related to incidents that could have been prevented. Mismatched blood transfusions, operations on the wrong body parts, that sort of thing. Private insurers are also expected to instantiate the same rule.

At first blush, this seems fair. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for medical mistakes—neither should the patient. I guess what isn't clear to me is how the new rule will protect patients from accruing these extra costs. If no one's watching as the hospital charges me $50 for two ibuprofen, who's going to be watching if I'm charged an exorbitant amount of money to cover the vascular damage from a catheter?

Hopefully you experts in the health insurance industry can enlighten me. :)

Posted by Megan Mahan at 11:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

If you sell life insurance, this probably seems pretty silly to you. But hey—I used to be in sales: sometimes you find yourself selling the product with the best commission over the product that best fits the prospect's needs.

It's always good to get back to basics. Click through to read the synopsis of tips for pitching perm v. term.

Continue reading "Life Insurance Sales Tip: When to Pitch Term v. Perm" »

Posted by Megan Mahan at 10:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

Understand their fear of the unknown.
While life insurance has been around for centuries, long-term care is only about 30 years old. So how do you calm consumers' fear of the unknown? By being honest, clear, dispassionate and empathetic.

Clear up any misconceptions.
Since many consumers don’t understand the difference between health insurance and long-term care insurance, they think that their private and/or public health insurance will cover the costs associated with long-term care. It’s important for you, then, to make sure they know that medical insurance won’t cover the costs associated with the activities of daily living (ADL).*

Maintain your integrity.
Scare tactics may be effective, but they come at a moral cost. LTC is a smart buy for some, but not others (the poor and the rich). Painting terrifying scenarios of losing retirement nest-eggs to nursing homes may help you sell a few more policies, but it’s not a long-term model to rely on. Nor is selling policies to people who are either poor enough to qualify for public assistance or to those who have enough retirement savings to pay for care out of pocket. You’ll lose sleep and tarnish your reputation (and that of the entire LTC industry) if you sell LTC to people who don’t need it.

Don’t sell. Educate.
Present yourself as an impartial expert, not a biased salesperson. Provide manageable bits of information to potential clients and, if necessary, help them see how LTC could be beneficial. The best way to do that? Ask questions, the most essential one being this: “Do you have a plan and/or funds in place in the event that you need help with the essential daily tasks of eating, bathing, moving around, etc.?” By asking open-ended questions, you’ll let them come to the decision themselves, winning their trust (and probably a referral or two) in the process.

* The original sentence erroneously referenced "IADL" instead of ADL, the correct acronym. Thanks to reader Scott A. Olson for catching the error.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
 

The Insurance Information Institute is sporting a nice redesign. (And if you haven't seen our agent site recently, we've got a new look as well. Kudos to Patrick Ritz, our designer, for the facelift. Agent.insureMe.com looks years younger!)

If you want to know how to use PowerPoint effectively, check out Megan and James' slides from their High Tecc presentation. I may be a little biased, but I think they stole the show.

Totally unrelated to insurance, this site, which picks up on various feelings throughout cyberspace, may just wreck your productivity.

What will the long-term effects of Michael Moore's "Sicko" be? Did the 24-hour news cycle simply absorb it? Or is it destined to alter the future of our health care system? Drop your two cents by leaving a comment below. (Actually, things have been so quiet on this blog, please just offer a grunt to let us know you're still here.)

In other news, here's a recent headline from the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog: "Bush Opposes Expansion of Children’s Health Insurance." Ouch.

A recurring theme of the recent High Tecc conference was selling to different generations--boomers, Xers, millennials. I think most effective sales strategies are timeless and apply to every generation, but there are differences between the generations, and you'd do well to figure out what they are and adjust accordingly. But please, please watch the firstminute of this video before you start peppering your vocabulary with MTV-generation lingo.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 03:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

Well, this is a light week for insurance traffic typically. Therefore, we let both of our vibrant and vital bloggers take some well deserved vacation time. That allows those of us who have been just waiting to express our opinions a chance to blog.

That being said, I wanted to applaud the diligent agents in this industry who are selling Long Term Care insurance. Being of the Generation BB era (Baby boomer that is), I am now thinking that LTC insurance is a great idea. But, it is just one of those things that is difficult to prioritize. My parents' generation had health insurance from their employers -- if they were lucky enough to retire. Those employers, along with long term employment even, are few and far between now, so Long Term Care is even more important. Every once in a while my conscience will remind me to pursue this issue. None the less, it is difficult to take action.

I just wanted to give a word of encouragement to those Long Term Care agents, as it is clear that it is going to take quite a while to get me to commit. However, my incredible slow pace or lack of response doesn't mean I don't want hear from you at all. It just means that with LTC, it is a slow and very soft sell. By the way, thanks for looking out for us BB's.

On a different note: no matter how you look at the Sicko movie, (and I'm thinking most of you aren't looking at it too kindly) the timing of the London and Glasgow car bombings attempts, allegedly by Great Britain's National Health Service physicians, couldn't have been worse for Michael Moore.

Posted by Lori Reed at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

I dug through my feed reader this morning for something to tell you all, but this is the jist of today's news:

:)

Happy weekend, all!

via | source

Posted by Megan Mahan at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

The annual National Association of Health Underwriters (NAHU) is holding its annual conference here in Denver this week, and this morning Maribeth and I had the opportunity to chat with various conference attendees in the exhibit hall. (Yes, we've still got the infamous stress balls left—stop by tomorrow if you haven't yet gotten one!)

While we keep up with industry happenings each day, it really doesn't compare to getting out and talking with all of you guys and gals. It was specifically eye-opening for me to see the private health insurance industry react to Michael Moore's upcoming movie, Sicko (which examines the problems with U.S. health care), as well as the government's role in it.

In fact, NAHU President David Fear used his farewell address last night to sound off on Moore and the government's role in health care, vehemently declaring that the government need not intervene to provide health insurance to all Americans.

Continue reading "Hot Topics at NAHU: Michael Moore and Universal Health Care" »

Posted by Megan Mahan at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
 

You've got to read this article. It’s about the tens of thousands of young adults—or, ‘young invincibles’—living in New York City without health insurance. It’s a harrowing story.

It’s also great journalism. Few magazine or newspaper articles come as close as this one to presenting the complexity, convolution, and human and economic toll of our broken health care system. It does so by focusing on a group that typically goes without insurance—an uninsured group that has very few advocates: young adults.

Here’s the nut of the story (I know this is a huge blockquote, but there was nothing I could cut from it).

Compared with small children, uninsured young workers are generally ineffective as political sympathy-generators and are therefore typically viewed as a footnote to the debate. But health-care analysts will tell you that insuring children, while certainly noble, is a relatively easy goal. “What a lot of people don’t realize,” says Peter Cunningham, a researcher at the Washington, D.C.–based Center for Studying Health System Change, “is that most children are already eligible for some form of care. They either qualify for Medicaid or can be insured under their parents’ plan. So in many respects, it’s a matter of making the paperwork clearer, not overhauling the system.” The young invincibles, on the other hand, are an example of how the system bypasses some groups altogether. In this they are not alone—the poor have a long history of inadequate care, and increasingly, middle-class families are finding themselves priced out—though to understand their bind is to see just how ineffective the current system has become.

Many people in the insurance industry gripe about media coverage of insurance issues. And occasionally they have a point. This article is an example of the kind of reportage the insurance industry should champion.

Read the article.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 02:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

Industry changes have only just begun, according to Allstate Chairman Edward M. Liddy. Liddy, who spoke at a recent AM Best conference in California, identified some key changes that will drive industry going forward.

Of these key changes, I was most struck by the following:

• The continued move toward "tiered pricing," which would give insurers the ability to differentiate between their best and worst risks, and price them accordingly.
• A larger emphasis on marketing and advertising. Branding and communications can help give insurers the edge when they can't compete on price alone.
• Servicing aging Americans. "This places a premium on the trusted advisor role," said Liddy.
• Providing greater consumer choice by increasing the flexibility of insurance policies.
• Using technology to enable distribution and compete locally.

Judging by the overview, Allstate's getting the idea. I'm curious to see if competing insurers will act nimbly enough to do just that—compete.

Check out the full story courtesy of A.M. Best or Insurance News Net (article access is subscription-based; apologies!)

(Photo from Flickr under Creative Commons)

Posted by Megan Mahan at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
 

I don’t know about you, but the health care debate usually leaves me with a little dizziness and a lot of pessimism.

There are so many moving parts, interested parties, hitches, glitches, consequences foreseen and unforeseen, and catch-22s inherent in any proposed solution to our woes.

Of the health care reform bills that see the light of day, most require at least a thousand pages to describe a solution that either does nothing much or promises to piss off every conceivable stakeholder.

So it was a breath of fresh air to read about a new bill from an Oregon senator that is only 166 pages in length and has the support of many usually conflicting parties.

Continue reading "Hey, That's a Pretty Good Idea" »

Posted by Jeb Foster at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

As you may know, one insurer made waves recently when it announced it would offer a life insurance product for people who smoke marijuana. (See this article from the Washington Post: “One Uninsured Group Can Now Exhale.”)

It was news to me, but according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), many pot smokers are “forced” to either lie on applications, go without insurance (or pay exorbitant rates) or quit lighting up. For the dedicated smoker, none of these are attractive options.

So I’m going to open the floor up to you, Agent Blog reader. Is this a good idea? Is it the start of a trend? Please feel free to leave a comment below. If you're pressed for time but want to register an opinion, you can see if one of the points below jibes with your point of view. If one does, you can just write “point” or “counterpoint.”

Let the discussion begin!

Point
It’s a good idea and probably a harbinger of a widespread rethinking of marijuana policy. After all, marijuana smokers, aside from having some extra junk in their lungs, are pretty much as healthy as everyone else. Premature deaths from smoking marijuana can be counted on one hand. If underwriting is truly centered on risk, then this group is, by most accounts, a pretty safe bet.

Counterpoint
What’s next? A long-term care policy for meth users? Why make it easier for people to do something that’s illegal? Isn’t that in itself kind of shady? Until marijuana use is sanction by law, these potheads shouldn’t be given any breaks. And aren’t marijuana smokers more likely to use other, harder drugs at some point? They’re hardly an insignificant claims risk. Bad idea jeans.

Posted by Jeb Foster at 02:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
 

There’s no question; the health-insurance industry is floundering—millions uninsured, ever-increasing premiums accompanied by less comprehensive coverage.

And although President Bush’s health proposal has its critics, it addresses an issue that has long plagued Americans, particularly the 47 million uninsured.

His proposal, while vastly different from former President Clinton’s attempt at health-care reform, has one similarity. It guarantees to upend a health-insurance system that has covered most Americans for the last 60 years.

And even though change is inevitable, especially the reform of a faulty system, it has the tendency to incite fear and doubt.

But let’s not jump to partisan conclusions just yet.

The state of affairs…for now

The least expensive, most popular way to purchase health insurance is tax free through an employer. If an individual contributes, he or she is covered, regardless of health or age.

Because many partake in their employers’ health insurance program, the majority of uninsured Americans comprise lower-income families, children and minorities. However, in recent years the issue has ceased being one of socio-economic status or race and begun to affect middle-class Americans, many of whom are self employed or working for small businesses that don’t offer health insurance.

The uninsured masses either purchase individual health insurance, with no tax deductions, or remain uninsured and possibly dependent on government programs, such as Medicaid.

Continue reading "A (Hopefully) Objective Look at Health-Care Reform" »

Posted by maribeth neelis at 05:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
 

According to an article via the Insurance Journal today, Mutual of Omaha has its sights set on market expansion—namely, banking.

The near 100-year old company could potentially market the new offerings to its existing policyholders. Which, at the end of 2005, included 1.5 million individual policyholders and more than 13,500 employer groups.

Mutual of Omaha president and CEO Jeff Schmid said the new offering would "be a base for extending electronic banking across the country."

The operative word for the move, however, is "diversify." By involving themselves in the banking market, Schmid added that they could broaden Mutual's horizons for the future:

"We have the ability to build a company that complements Mutual over the next 10 or 20 years, that really has so much in common from a financial services standpoint."

While the article notes that about three dozen other U.S. insurers have made the same move, I have yet to catch wind of it. Think in ten years we'll all be banking with our insurer? Seems sort of strange, but not that far-fetched.

Personally, as a customer of Mutual of Omaha, I'll be interested to see how they position the added feature to existing policyholders.

Photo from Flickr under Creative Commons license

Posted by Megan Mahan at 04:04 PM |