- 1,304
That's the STM product your referring to. Great product and well placed with this client.
Kudos to your Broker
Child Only
- Thread starter Bobby
- Start date
That's the STM product your referring to. Great product and well placed with this client.
Kudos to your Broker
that's a dad gum shot term major scamacial policy... POS in my view but whatever... sorry to my good friend kruger... I think stmm are scum
- 1,304
At 19 (Invincible) STM for the time being works... There are only a hand full of differences between that company STM and it's MM.
Tate...why you hating on the STM product? It's not like it's an HII product
Its better than nothing. And right now, that's all you can get in some cases.
- 1,304
What Liability are you referring to? Enquiring minds would like to know....
a lawsuit filed against ya due to the pre x that denies every cotton piken thing.... fight it and spend several thou and you will think like me... you have been warned
A lot of people think group insurance is priced like it was before. Previously, group insurance was often much more expensive than individual/family plans. Also, group insurance was often composite rated where age didn't matter because every employee paid the same price. Lastly, group insurance charged one flat fee for child(ren) regardless of how many children you had.
Those days have changed (well, at least for groups of 2-50 who have ACA-compliant plans). And this changes the assumption that it is always less expensive to insure a child under an IFP plan than the parent's group plan. Now, if you have one child, your group plan (with 2-50 employees on an ACA-compliant plan) will charge a rate for just that one child, not a flat rate that covers any number of children you have. Also, group insurance premiums can be paid with pre-tax dollars if the employer uses a Section 125 plan. And, lastly, group insurance is usually only 10% or so more than IFP for children, yet often has options that exceed the benefits you can find in an IFP plan.
So, yesterday's idea of insuring your child on an IFP plan may or may not be the best choice today. And, as for an STM plan, that would be my last choice, and I would never help a parent choose an STM plan simply because they could drive the premium down while they play the "wait until OEP" game of insurance russian roulette.
Those days have changed (well, at least for groups of 2-50 who have ACA-compliant plans). And this changes the assumption that it is always less expensive to insure a child under an IFP plan than the parent's group plan. Now, if you have one child, your group plan (with 2-50 employees on an ACA-compliant plan) will charge a rate for just that one child, not a flat rate that covers any number of children you have. Also, group insurance premiums can be paid with pre-tax dollars if the employer uses a Section 125 plan. And, lastly, group insurance is usually only 10% or so more than IFP for children, yet often has options that exceed the benefits you can find in an IFP plan.
So, yesterday's idea of insuring your child on an IFP plan may or may not be the best choice today. And, as for an STM plan, that would be my last choice, and I would never help a parent choose an STM plan simply because they could drive the premium down while they play the "wait until OEP" game of insurance russian roulette.
I agree with both Somarco and Peeler (probably a 1st), there is way too much potential liability with STM for an agent to justify writing one. Insurance companies are as liable to pay a major claim under STM without a complete claims review (during which they will do anything possible to find a reason for the claim to be regarded as pre-ex) as one of us would be to hand out hundred dollar bills on a street corner.
Last edited:
- 8,448
Before 2014, Major Medical and STM would look for a Pre-X medical reason to deny claims. Now, only STM plans can do this. ObamaCare, as it pertains to Major Medical protections, is a good thing.
But I disagree on the uselessness STM, if the alternative is no coverage whatsoever.
ac
Similar threads
