- quote -

And they are. The perqs handed out are not irrelevant.

Elizabeth Richardson

Hello g ....

some fundamentals.

First of all, the need for life insurance must be established. And in
your case you use "we" to describe part of your life situation. That
suggests married or committed relationship where there is an insurable
interest. Assuming you really do have a need for life insurance, then
some form of permanent life insurance is something you absolutely must
consider as an option.

In your comparisons of permanent life insurance I would urge you to
look at a whole life policy from a mutual company with the strong
financial ratings.

Once you establish how much life insurance is required then you can
quite easily design an approach using the combination of your budget
and your goals for the cash value.

Life insurance enjoys favorable tax treatment. And, in some states, is
asset protected. So if you can identify a strong dividend performing
product you can also look at techniques such as over funding in order
to take advanatage of the favorable tax treatment.

There is only one company which has triple A rating from all 4 major
rating agencies. That company estimates it will pay $4.3 Billion
dividends to policy holders this year alone. And that company also has
topped the Fortune magazine Most Admired List every year the survey has
run. No other company in the industry can make all of these claims.
That company is Northwestern Mutual. Find a local agent and ask for a
free consultation and evaluation of your needs.

hth.

"Sam Dickens" <SamDickens[at]verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cq6q225irum453g90vscqkbgl66re6r2mk[at]4ax.com...

- quote -

If your source of compensation is unimportant and irrelevant, why do you say
"It's not fair"?
Saying that implies that there could be something to hide and that if one
industry has to disclose it so should they all. If it were really
irrelevant, "fairness" would not be an issue and you could just say, "It
makes no difference to me; I will just tell you the irrelevant facts if you
wish. No big deal." If you found out your doctor were being paid by the drug
companies who manufacture the products in your prescriptions, would you be
concerned?

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 02:43:57 -0600, "Dave Dodson"
<dave_and_darla[at]Juno.com> wrote:

- quote -

client's choice between two suitable prodicts. Yes, I've disclosed
every important item of information to the client, as I'm required to
do. Further, that fact that I may be compensation different amount is
neither material nor relevant to the client's choice, and for that
matter, the mere fact that I'm getting paid isn't "detrimental" to the
client.

Look, in the first place you should be aware that in any insurance
office the bigger producing agents are constantly on the phone yelling
at the underwriters and whomever else to get the client a lower
premium, or a better deal, or to have the Company apply the group
discount when in fact there's no group. They're almost always looking
for a better deal for the client.

But more importantly, you can't single out one particular industry for
different treatment based on anecdotal biases. It's not fair. When
all industries are required to disclose their commission based
compensation, then it would be right and proper for the insurance
salesman to do so too.

If we're going to talk more specifically about the insurance salesman
who's also a financial planner (and thus moving the salesman from the
'suitability' standard to the 'fiduciary' standard), then I will
modify my position and conceed there's good cause for your disclosure
argument.

Sam Dickens wrote:
- quote -

I disagree. If an agent could offer me two products which would meet my
needs, one being more expensive and having a higher commission than the
other, his fiducial responsibility is to offer both products to me with
_all_ of the relevant information on which I might make an informed
decision. Holding _any_ relevant information back would be a breach of
his responsibility as a fiduciary. Disclosing the commissions will help
me assess any possible conflict of interest. It could be that the
higher cost product with a higher commission is the best choice for me,
but that should be my decision rather than the agent's.

Sam, if you can offer two products as above, do you always offer both
and let the customer make a fully informed decision? Or do you hold
back some information on purpose because it might be detrimental to
you?

Dave

- quote -

Attorneys have such a requirement, explicitly spelled out in the rules
of professional conduct for each and every state, possession and
territory.



Gary Brolis
http://www.MechanicsofMoney.com
http://www.MechanicsofMoney.com/blog.php

The problem with your position is that it's based on the assumption
that ripping off the client/consumer is the normal way professionals
go about their business no matter what business they're in. You
believe the car salesman or the doctor or the plumber or the financial
planner is going to sell the client until she has no money left,
whether the client needs it or not, in order to maximize the
compensation.

You distinguish (and see as inherently anti-consumer) 'commission' as
a measure of compensation for services from 'salary', or 'profit', or
'bonus', or any other measure.

In these things you are mistaken.


- quote -


- quote -


- quote -


- quote -

Yes, I agree with all of this (except your "everyone is out to screw
me" assumption), and none of what you say leads to the conclusion that
an insurance agent's compensation should be disclosed when no other
professional has such a requirement.

The fiduciary duty rules are in place to protect the client from
unsuitable sales. Disclosing agent compensation doesn't add a thing
to protect the consumer. It's just another anti-insurance salesman
bias. I don't think any of your statements proves your point.

"Douglas Johnson" wrote
- quote -

Doug, care to share how much your wife's monthly health
insurance bill is now? About how old is she? 40-something,
50-something? Also, is her health insurance from an
employer's plan (yours or hers?)? How long ago were these
illnesses?

I wonder sometimes about the stated "billed" rate. I have
heard that health care providers write off on their taxes
what the uninsured can't pay. I wish we had more media
coverage of what's going on behind the scenes with health
care providers' books.

I think it's more likely that health care providers actually
increase income through increased services, and higher costs
per service, to the insured. I remain doubtful that insurers
can control this all that much, since what the appropriate
standard of care is is often in dispute among even the best
medical professionals.

"Chris Cowles" <spam_magnet[at]remove-me-bellsouth.net> wrote:


- quote -

A side effect of this is to shift costs to those with the least ability to pay
-- the uninsured.

My wife has had two serious illnesses. The bill for the first one was
$110,000. The insurance paid $60,000 at their negotiated rate. The bill for
the second was $60,000 and insurance paid $28,000. Our out of pocket was less
than $1,000 total. Without insurance, we would have been on the hook for the
full $170,0000.

The financial planning hook is that you should have health insurance, even if it
is a high deductible policy. You'll get the negotiated rate, not the rack rate.

-- Doug

Cal wrote:
- quote -

Certainly. When I go to the audio store to buy a home theater system, I
have no idea whether the salesman's recommendations are based on how
well he believes a particular system will meet the needs I have
expressed or whether the system is crummy and the manager is giving a
bonus of $100 to clear the junk out of the store. But I can comparison
shop or check out an unbiased source such as Consumer Reports far more
easily on a home theater system than on a particular life insurance or
investment product.

Dave

"Chris Cowles" <spam_magnet[at]remove-me-bellsouth.net> wrote
- quote -

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? If the doctor
or his/er employer wants more money, s/he just gives a
diagnosis that seems to fit but may not. And who's going to
catch it? Diagnosis certainly by its nature is often
hit-or-miss. Should an insurer not have to pay for a test
that was negative but in fact was appropriate for the
symptoms?

And what about the reports that doctors spend less time with
patients than ever, and that this affects the quality of
care they can give? They're spending less time with patients
because their jobs have become the pressure cooker of
lawyers: It's largely about billable acts. Never mind the
quality of the acts.

- quote -

I think you are omitting the (much reported on) inherent
conflict of the incentive to incease costs of services (or
number of services) and so gain money. Medicine is so
gray--and each individual so unique--that it's extremely
difficult to identify what a reasonable standard of care is.

Consider:
---NY Times, "Why Doctors So Often Get It Wrong," Feb. 22,
2006---
Under the current medical system, doctors, nurses, lab
technicians and hospital executives are not actually paid to
come up with the right diagnosis. They are paid to perform
tests and to do surgery and to dispense drugs.
There is no bonus for curing someone and no penalty for
failing, except when the mistakes rise to the level of
malpractice.
---
or
---Associated Press, "Health study finds that 'we all get
equally mediocre care'," March 17
[In a survey of 7000 patients, the biggest study ever of
U.S. health care].. patients received only 55 percent of
recommended steps for top-quality care...
---

- quote -

followed by one's own study of one's ailments so as to keep
a medical plan of action focused; followed by watching
health insurance and hospital billing very closely, since
reports are that errors in billing (from insurers and
hospitals) are routine and often sizable. (Yes, I have
citations for this too.)

<BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net> wrote in message
news:yobzmjhi0pm.fsf[at]panix2.panix.com...
- quote -

HSAs may have the effect you describe, but third-party payers have *not*
driven costs up. They have driven costs *down*.

Working for a large healthcare provider, I can tell you that third-party
contracts pay fixed rates per diagnosis, not fee-for-service. The incentive
is definitely for the provider to cut costs, or lose money. There also are
incentives *not* to cut quality. Not only are contracts tied to quality
indicators, but repeat readmissions for the same diagnosis do not get paid
another dime. (Translate: if a hospital discharges someone to early because
of financial incentives, it actually costs them more when the patient comes
back in because they're still sick. Hospitals really don't want that to
happen. The incentive is for the patient to leave as early as possible, but
is well enough to leave and outpatient care is arranged.)
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL

<BreadWithSpam[at]fractious.net> wrote in message
news:yobzmjhi0pm.fsf[at]panix2.panix.com...
- quote -


TOUCHÉ`
Cal

"Cal" <cal-lester[at]comcast.net> writes:

- quote -

Amongst the things driving the high cost of healthcare are
the fact of third-party payers and undisclosed costs. As
folks start using HSAs, they *will* expect prices to be
posted or disclosed beforehand.

Perhaps not for life-saving emergency situations, but
certainly for routine medical care, drug purchases (already
happening a *lot* for drug purchases), standard tests, etc.

But that's all apples and oranges.

--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

Sam, you can't honestly beleive that purchasing a TV is as important as
purchasing financial advice. That you would compare the two is a
little troubling...

Dave is exactly right. "Financial planners" are in a position of
authority and trust. Clients disclose the details of their personal
and financial lives to planners and they rely on planners to provide
objective financial advice. They are paying for that advice (by paying
the commission out of the premiums that they will pay, potentially for
the rest of their lives) and they deserve more than a TV salesman
looking to earn a commission in providing that advice. That advice
must focus first and foremost on the clients needs, not the planners or
TV salesman's self-interest. In this life we have to have some people
on our side that we can rely on -- "financial planners" fall in that
group.

I am not saying that earning a commission is always a bad thing
(although, I personally do beleive that a 100% commission as described
above is way too much for the five minutes the "financial planner"
spent to provide the "recommendation" plus the five minutes it would
have taken the "financial planner" to fill out the application,
especially since the clients did not need the product). I am saying
that any commission should be disclosed. The nature of the transaction
warrants full disclosure.


Gary Brolis
http://www.MechanicsofMoney.com
http://www.MechanicsofMoney.com/blog.php

"Dave Dodson" <dave_and_darla[at]Juno.com> wrote in message
news:1143122363.140001.318790[at]i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -


There is merit in what you say, but would not the conflict of
interest in any & all of the dealings previously mentioned have
bearing on the descion made by the customer??

Cal Lester CLU

"Sam Dickens" <aquariustutor[at]verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g85422psga8or7c2g42a1c3j1ldes0nd09[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

my complements Sam............................. I am afraid that you left
out
the Doctor, who saves your life, by doing an emergency operation, and
then has the NERVE to send you a bill for $15,000, which he never
mentioned before or during the operation.
Cal Lester CLU

Sam Dickens wrote:
- quote -

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the difference is that
insurance salesmen and financial planners have a fiduciary
responsibility to the customer, whereas the car and stereo seller's
responsibility is to the boss. That puts a greater onus on the person
selling financial products. Full disclosure helps the customer decide
whether the salesman has any conflict of interest.

Dave

I went to PC Richard's last month and bought almost $4,000 of home
theatre equipment (and I didn't even get the TV yet!)

The salesman made a nice big fat commission, but never during the
sales process did he disclose that to me. And I wasn't offended,
that's the way it is. When you go to the Ford dealer the salesman
makes a commission; that's how he feeds his kids. Neither the
salesman or the dealership owner disclose what the earn, which of
course is included in the price I pay for the car. The grocer earns a
commission when I buy a bagful of groceries. Why then is the
insurance salesman the one who gets tagged as deceptive for not
disclosing what he earns? Does your plumber? Whether her commission
is half the first year premium, or 100%, or 200%; what difference does
it make to the customer weighing two policies? If the commission
impacts the benefits of the contract, the customer will decide whether
or not to buy based on that issue (and others), just as when she
decides between an F-150 and a Durango.

This "financial planner" is a life insurance salesman trying to flog you
into buying his product. Find another planner...

Durban

g wrote:

- quote -