Scroll down for a discussion on Is anyone going to the Convention (National Agents Alliance) (NAA within the Life Insurance Forum.
Originally Posted by dvd493
sman,
Insurance companies created Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies underwrite Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies created the Non Medical MP policies.
...
Insurance companies created Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies underwrite Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies created the Non Medical MP policies.
Insurance companies market Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies pay us to sell Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies found another way to help protect people.
Why come down on us who sell it? Sell what you sell and be happy. I'll sell what I sell and I'll be happy. We both help people, we both win some clients and lose some clients. If we didn't do what we do, how would a potential customer be served?
You may do an underwriten policy with a paramed only to find to the customers suprise that he is one of those hundreds of thousands of undiagnosed diabetics. Goodbye insurance and hello no coverage for the rest of his life. That won't help him out will it?
I come along before you and write a non med and he is approved. The insurance companies have higher premiums for the extra risk they take. Now who helped the customer? If a non med is such a bad idea, why do insurance companies take that risk? Why not agree that we both help the clients we serve and leave it at that?
I'm not going to sit here and accuse you of killing people or send a Ins. Carrier into bankruptcy like others. Yet though, I would suggest that you broaden your horizon and not leave money on the table! Leaving money on the table doesn't help you nor your client.
Yet though, these comments were something:
Ummm, that might actually save his life. If someone has any condition that hasn't been diagnosed yet they're just a ticking time bomb.
so your all in favor of screwing your insurance co's sticking them with diabetics......BTW....the insurance co's are the ones that pay your bill's......
So let me get this straight, if you believe that small DB's are wrong,
Never said that.
if you believe that the EIA or the EIUL is wrong, or that W/L is wrong etc
Never said that either. What I did say is that one should sell the appropriate product for the persons situation. Since this thread is about MP, I'll just comment on that. I've seen the MP sales process. It's designed to be a one appointment close with the proposal already prepared before arriving. Sure, a good sales person will adjust. But they all try and sell the same product. It's not a total needs approach. Nor is it best for the client the majority of the time.
In other words, it is you that determines what is correct or not correct?
For my clients, yes. Of course they need to agree with my recommendation. If they don't, they can always go somewhere else.
Outside of that you claim some imaginary position of authority and responsibility of nurturing the insurance field, wow, must be a heavy burden you place upon yourself.
Forgive me for taking pride in what I do and wanting to make sure people are treated fairly.
So if John Q says he doesn't want to fund such things as his kidÂ’s college education or his wife's lifestyle after he passes away then he is wrong?
Again, not what I said. If that's what the client wants, that's what he gets. However, I would definitely show a medically underwritten rate and give the client a choice. And I wouldn't use scare tactics like, "if you have the slightest thing wrong with you, you'll be declined and never be able to get coverage".
Personally myself, I feel no strong desire to fund my child's college funding, so I suppose that makes me evil if I sell or purchase life insurance that doesn't take such into account? I also see no need for my wife never do work again in the case of my death, once again I'm a pariah to the insurance industry?
Entirely your choice. I personally desire for my family to be better off if something happened to me.
I bet you just as many (if not more) share the feelings I express here then may share your feelings about such matters.
Again, the word is "than" not "then". And if we had any way of proving the results, I'd bet you everything I own on that one.
What really amazes me is how some can create fantasies and paint with such broad brushes only to give themselves some kind of holier then thou feeling.
Oh, is that what I'm doing? By offering more than one product to a client? By educating them on more than one option and letting them make an educated decision? You've got it backwards.
I'm sure that many in the MP side of the biz are fine individuals that serve their clients well.
Oh, I'm sure they're fine individuals as well. They just don't know any better yet. It's hard to do right be everybody when you only have one product to offer.
I'm also sure that the same percentage of those that promote "Total Life Coverage", give lousy advice as those on the MP side of the biz.
I don't know about the same percentage. But I'm sure there are those that give poor advice as well.
Insurance companies created Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies underwrite Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies created the Non Medical MP policies.
Insurance companies market Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies pay us to sell Mortgage Protection policies.
Insurance companies found another way to help protect people.
Why come down on us who sell it? Sell what you sell and be happy. I'll sell what I sell and I'll be happy. We both help people, we both win some clients and lose some clients. If we didn't do what we do, how would a potential customer be served?
You may do an underwriten policy with a paramed only to find to the customers suprise that he is one of those hundreds of thousands of undiagnosed diabetics. Goodbye insurance and hello no coverage for the rest of his life. That won't help him out will it?
I come along before you and write a non med and he is approved. The insurance companies have higher premiums for the extra risk they take. Now who helped the customer? If a non med is such a bad idea, why do insurance companies take that risk? Why not agree that we both help the clients we serve and leave it at that?
Oh yeah, my battle should be with the insurance company. That sounds a little like blaming the gun industry for people getting shot. Let's go after the gun companies. I mean, God knows, if they didn't make guns, people wouldn't get shot.
As for the diabetic scenario, do you really think you can't get a diabetic insured? I have several clients who are diabetic and have medically underwritten policies. There are many companies with lenient underwriting guidelines for people with health issues. There is a time and a place for a non-med policy. But it's not 95% of the time.
And why come down on those that sell the non-med products? Because that's all most offer their potential client. Be honest, how often do you present the client with the option of a medically underwritten policy? How often do you find out what their other needs are?
My goal here is to show you that there are better ways to serve your potential clients. You may not get paid as quickly, but you will be doing a better job for your clients. That is if you believe that saving your clients money is doing a better job.
Again, the word is "than" not "then". And if we had any way of proving the results, I'd bet you everything I own on that one.
Oh, I'm sure they're fine individuals as well. They just don't know any better yet. It's hard to do right be everybody when you only have one product to offer.
Will you please proof read your writing before posting! You may think they are typo's but they seem to be present quite often?
Again, the word is "than" not "then". And if we had any way of proving the results, I'd bet you everything I own on that one.
Oh, I'm sure they're fine individuals as well. They just don't know any better yet. It's hard to do right be everybody when you only have one product to offer.
Will you please proof read your writing before posting! You may think they are typo's but they seem to be present quite often?
Yeah, you got me on that one. It should've been "by" instead of "be". I didn't proof read last night. However, my occassional mistake is not present "quite often" as you say. Nice try though.
Again, the word is "than" not "then". And if we had any way of proving the results, I'd bet you everything I own on that one.
Oh, I'm sure they're fine individuals as well. They just don't know any better yet. It's hard to do right be everybody when you only have one product to offer.
Will you please proof read your writing before posting! You may think they are typo's but they seem to be present quite often?
Yeah, you got me on that one. It should've been "by" instead of "be". I didn't proof read last night. However, my occassional mistake is not present "quite often" as you say. Nice try though.
I just changed to 2 mill. I'm making over $3,000 a week but my wife just has a high school degree and hasn't worked in over 8 years. Maybe, just maybe she would get a job as a cashier in a grocery store for $8 an hour.
In the mean time we live nicely, the house would need to be paid off among other bills. I don't want my wife moving back in with her parents so she'd need to live day to day and get our son through college.
To replace my income she would need a 2 million DB. Sure, I could have $500,000. She'd pay off the house and other bills. Then she'd get a job at Walmart and move back in with her parents. No thanks.
Thank God I never got contacted by a MP agent. Then she'd just pay off the house and be flat broke.
I should also just apply the MP concept to health insurance. I'll just switch to selling guaranteed issue indemnity products that cap surgery at $200 R&B. After all, aren't I being unethical for having a family pay $400 a month for health insurance that's underwritten? I could get that same family a guaranteed issue indemnity pay for a third of the rate. Then they could take their extra money and invest it and get educated. The only small downfall is they lose everything they've ever worked for if they file a claim. Oh well.
First of all, if you want to properly engineer the plan that covers college, income replacement, mortgage payoff, etc. you are not going to do that with one plan. So you would put them in one big 30 year term or a UL to cover all those needs? What about when the kids are finished with college 10 years from now? You believe that your client is well served to continue paying premiums on that portion of the face amount for another 20 years even though they don't need it any longer?
lower the face amount if its that big of a deal....
Originally Posted by flatfive
Provide a death benefit that will payoff cars? Wouldn't she sell one of them? Wouldn't she be faced with buying a new car at some point in the future, and if so, should we ask what kind of car that will be so we can cover that too? Income replacement? Life insurance as an instant retirement plan? Boy, that will certainly give you a big enough need that you can drive that face amount up as high as you desire which is presumably $1M since there seems to be some fascination with that face amount.
no....my biggest policy was 5 million....most are from $500,000 to 1,000,000.....it seems your fascination is how much non~med can you get for under $100 a month.....
Originally Posted by flatfive
Don't try to suggest monies could be used for continuing ed, college courses, or training programs to create a career for herself because that will be a much smaller need, and at those low premiums god knows you need to get that face amount up nice and high to make it worth your while.
and your answer is to sell them a low face amount with a high prem....the NAA way.........
sman - How about getting a part time job as an editor to satisfy your thirst for perfect diction?
Nah. This one keeps me busy enough.
This isn't a writers' forum and as long as the point being made comes through clearly there is no value in trying to ridicule someone for their spelling ability.
Just constructive criticism. If you can't take it. Then leave. I mean let's be honest, if you're doing something that could be detrimental to you, wouldn't you want someone to point it out? Speaking and writing happens a lot in this business. If you don't do them well, it can hinder you.
I can't help but comment on the idea that you are doing your clients a disservice if you do not explore additional need. You want to call other people "brainwashed" but you think exploring additional need through "financial needs analysis" is some selflesss excercise only designed to protect the client?
Call me crazy, but I think doing a COMPLETE job is the only way to do it.
First of all, if you want to properly engineer the plan that covers college, income replacement, mortgage payoff, etc. you are not going to do that with one plan.
Agreed.
So you would put them in one big 30 year term or a UL to cover all those needs?
Did I say that? I don't think so.
What about when the kids are finished with college 10 years from now? You believe that your client is well served to continue paying premiums on that portion of the face amount for another 20 years even though they don't need it any longer?
I don't believe I said that either. But you can always reduce the face amount and it would be based on the original COI. Just a thought.
Provide a death benefit that will payoff cars? Wouldn't she sell one of them?
Possibly. Maybe at the time of death she has a 15 year old who will be needing a car soon. Can't predict the future, only prepare for it.
Wouldn't she be faced with buying a new car at some point in the future, and if so, should we ask what kind of car that will be so we can cover that too?
You could. But the plan is to cover ongoing expenses. I think a car would be included in that.
Income replacement? Life insurance as an instant retirement plan? Boy, that will certainly give you a big enough need that you can drive that face amount up as high as you desire which is presumably $1M since there seems to be some fascination with that face amount.
I never suggested the $1m face amount as the "right" amount. Just out of curiosity, how many death claims have you filed over the years? And how many of those were to someone who didn't have enough coverage? I've seen both sides of the coin. And believe me, one side is MUCH metter than the other.
Don't try to suggest monies could be used for continuing ed, college courses, or training programs to create a career for herself because that will be a much smaller need, and at those low premiums god knows you need to get that face amount up nice and high to make it worth your while.
If you say so.
FNA probably should not even be allowed by an insurance agent unless they are a certified financial planner because you are pretending to understand many complex factors that will determine their future needs such as asset appreciation, devaluation of the dollar, earning potential, return on investment dollars, etc.
And how do you know what my credentials are? Are you suggesting that ONLY CFP's can do this? Is that because they passed the CFP exam or because they took the required course work or is it based on experience. I know many CFP's who are clueless when it comes to life insurance and will readily admit it. Don't hink for a minute you know me or my credentials.
Face it, you are "playing" a game of scare tactics designed to convince someone that without a $1M dollar policy in force their family will perish upon their death.
Oh , is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? "Hardly anyone qualifies for those medically underwritten policies and then you can't get coverage anywhere".
And if he does die, you'll be right there offering to convert that death benefit into an annuity, caring agent that you are. Oh, there is that commission thing, but that has very little to do with anything of course.
Not likely an annuity. Mutual funds or a managed account, but not likely an annuity. I had this very thing happen about 2 years ago. A 42 year old client passed away. Had a wife and a 6 year old son. The wife was a stay at home mom. Guess what, she's been able to stay at home for two years now. She's getting ready to go back to work. Not because she has to, but because she wants to. Now, had I sold her husband a policy to take care of the mortgage only, she would have had to gone to work much sooner and it would have been because she HAD to.
And the gas station example is stupid because you'd have to throw in a factor for the cheaper gas having a much greater likelihood of having water contamination to get an accurate metaphor.
Oh, ok. So now because it's cheaper there must be something wrong with it? Who was it that said something about scare tactics?
I think the point has been lost. You're obviously a very experienced and ethical agent. However, it's been my experience by knowing a lot of former NAA agents that they are simply trained to only sell expensive non-med products and jack the premium up. They are not taught to sit down the the client and do a true needs analysis since 90% of the time that face amount would require a paramed exam. The theory is get in, get the check and get out. It's obvious that in almost every single case the client needs more life insurance then simply the loan pay-off.
In more severe cases I've been in contact with former NAA agent who were trained that non-med is the only ethically correct way to sell life insurance and exams screw the clients over. This would simply be a way for managers to have their agents close quick deals so they can live off overrides. You know it. I know it.
Why would anyone want to pay a non-med rate if they're healthy? That's like telling someone with great credit "listen, we have a new credit card that you can get. We won't pull your credit but the interest is a flat 25%."
If you have decent credit are you gonna pay 25%? No. You WANT your credit pulled so you can get the best interest rate. How 'bout a mortgage company comes along with the same pitch "we won't pull your credit or ask any job questions but the home loan is 16%."
Now, are NAA agents informing their clients that they can qualify for a lower rate if they choose to have an exam?
I just read through a couple of pages and here is what I have to say about it. Not that anyone cares, but I have 5 minutes to kill.
How good is the NAA? Depends on your up line. If you have a manager who is concerned about the clients and doing right by them, then it may not be a bad deal. Sure the lead thing is not so great, but if that is ok with the agent, then so be it.
If you have a manager who is all about selling non-meds for a quick sale, and have their own best interests in mind and you should walk from them.
Non-med life insurance. If the client does not want a medical exam (no matter how basic) or has a condition that may rate him up or decline him, then look into it.
Life insurance based on the mortgage: Better then none at all. Tell the client to start with that policy and you will contact them in one year for an annual review to see if there is a better policy out there for them, depending on what the year has done.
Most people will see their name, their lender, their mortgage amount, skim through the rest, and fill it out.
Then when the agent calls them, they will have no idea what is going on and once again will hear their lender mentioned on the phone, and that is your foot in the door.
The average person will let you in. The above average usually has insurance in place and did not fill out the card.
You may think they are typo's but they seem to be present quite often?
Linear Mode
