[James]

Originally Posted by sman

James,

Do you proof read your messages before you post them? Sometimes they are very hard to follow. In addition, you use "then" where you should be using "than" ALL THE TIME. And "too" is not to be used the way you use it in your previous post. You may view this as petty, but to me, it speaks to the ability of one to comprehend logic. Which is something I think you may lack. Or maybe you're just pulling everyone's chain and writing this way to get this type of response.

I only point this out because if you talk the way you write, I can see why you wouldn't be writing many $1,000,000+ policies.

No I don't proof read my response. Plus I really don't care in this type of forum, may God save my soul. Obviously if anyone differs with the insanity some of ya'll promote then (is that correct) it must be a all or nothing routine? Such as Sti's response here,

"SO now after this step we have come up with a face amount....is this when you sell them the expensive home cert. plan......"

This is starting to sound like a political argument, if one differs on point A then he must be on side B which is of course evil! Yet since I've had previously taken the stance of not being a strong advocate for large DB as some here your conclusion may be correct even if incorrect.

[sman]

Originally Posted by James

Yet since I've had previously taken the stance of not being a strong advocate for large DB as some here your conclusion may be correct even if incorrect.

See, this is one of those statements you shoud have proof read before posting. I'll let you determine whether or not it makes sense.

No one says a person has to be a "strong advocate" for a large death benefit. Only for a sufficient death benefit. And I personally believe that the majority of families out there need more than $100k of coverage.

You take your typical family making about $80k a year, $150k-$200k mortgage. Two car payments. Two children. I'd say this couple needs much more than $100k. But most of the "mortgage protection" people go in and offer a plan that pays off the mortgage. That's it. Nothing else. Worse yet, they generally only show the non-med product. If that's the way you want to sell, more power to you. But it's my opinion that these types of agents do more harm than good to the image of our industry.

[dvd493]

You take your typical family making about $80k a year, $150k-$200k mortgage. Two car payments. Two children. I'd say this couple needs much more than $100k. But most of the "mortgage protection" people go in and offer a plan that pays off the mortgage. That's it. Nothing else. Worse yet, they generally only show the non-med product. If that's the way you want to sell, more power to you. But it's my opinion that these types of agents do more harm than good to the image of our industry.[/quote]

sman,

We are not the only people who come out to see the client. There are plenty of other agents who have seen them before us. As far as MP people giving the industry a bad image. If the industry has a bad image it happened long before we arrived on the scene. If you think paying off a house after a mother is widowed is bad for someone, you have an amazing way of thinking.

We are there to help people, just like you are. We just do it in different ways. One size does not fit all, thats why there is so much variety in products. If ours was bad, nobody would buy it. The truth is plenty of people do buy it because they see the value in it for them.

[James]

Originally Posted by sman

See, this is one of those statements you shoud have proof read before posting. I'll let you determine whether or not it makes sense.

Honestly, that statement was exactly what I wanted! So if it seems to be a bit nonsensical, then you have read it correctly, good job!

No one says a person has to be a "strong advocate" for a large death benefit. Only for a sufficient death benefit. And I personally believe that the majority of families out there need more than $100k of coverage.

I'm not a Advocate for a small/large DB, really doesn't matter to me, I don't expect others to share my beliefs either way. I don't teach, I don't persuade or convince, I don't even sell. I ask, what the client tells me is what I offer up as a solution. Now I understand some think you can convince people to do what you want them to do but, in truth the best you can do is marginal in convincing people they want what you want for them. Honestly I don't want to spend my life convincing people they need what I think they need!

You take your typical family making about $80k a year, $150k-$200k mortgage. Two car payments. Two children. I'd say this couple needs much more than $100k. But most of the "mortgage protection" people go in and offer a plan that pays off the mortgage. That's it. Nothing else. Worse yet, they generally only show the non-med product. If that's the way you want to sell, more power to you. But it's my opinion that these types of agents do more harm than good to the image of our industry

Now earlier I refered to this as the "Lost Opportunity", I agree most are not trained efficiently in uncovering additional needs. I don't sell MP, I have in the past but that was during my start with NAA. What they never dealt with in any training (whatever training is better) is that if they have other policies, esp. if older contracts with higher COI to wrap up that insurance with the new DB. Now this is a fairly easy way to sell up, yet they in my memory never mention that?

[sman]

Originally Posted by dvd493

As far as MP people giving the industry a bad image. If the industry has a bad image it happened long before we arrived on the scene.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, the industry has had a bad image. Mainly from the few that approach it with greed as opposed to doing the right thing. It's up to those of us that are in it to change that image. I personally feel selling a product because it's a quick issue product instead of the right product is detrimental to the industry.

If you think paying off a house after a mother is widowed is bad for someone, you have an amazing way of thinking.

Yeah, that's what I said. Go ahead and try and twist it all you want. In your scenario, the widow pays off the house. In my scenario, the widow pays off every debt she owes, has money for the kids college and never has to work if she doesn't want to. You tell me which one is better. Oh yeah, it's likely that my scenario costs less.

We are there to help people, just like you are. We just do it in different ways. One size does not fit all, thats why there is so much variety in products. If ours was bad, nobody would buy it. The truth is plenty of people do buy it because they see the value in it for them.

You couldn't have said it better. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!!! But that's all the MP guys do. Sell a one size fits all product. And the whole, "if ours was bad, nobody would buy it" argument is a joke. You know that people buy things that are inferior every day of the week. Just because someone buys your product doesn't make it good or the right product for their situation.

Look, you can try and justify why you do what you do all you want. It doesn't change the fact that many of your clients could have been better served with a medically underwritten policy. Of course that would mean waiting longer on commissions and in many cases being paid as earned. And we know that the MP industry can't survive that way. You need quick commissions and you need them advanced.

[James]

Originally Posted by sman

Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, the industry has had a bad image. Mainly from the few that approach it with greed as opposed to doing the right thing. It's up to those of us that are in it to change that image. I personally feel selling a product because it's a quick issue product instead of the right product is detrimental to the industry.

So let me get this straight, if you believe that small DB's are wrong, if you believe that the EIA or the EIUL is wrong, or that W/L is wrong etc, then everyone else has to share that point of view? In other words, it is you that determines what is correct or not correct? 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. I would suggest taken a step back and understand that some, some in the industry and some of the clients may not agree with your assumptions.

Yeah, that's what I said. Go ahead and try and twist it all you want. In your scenario, the widow pays off the house. In my scenario, the widow pays off every debt she owes, has money for the kids college and never has to work if she doesn't want to. You tell me which one is better. Oh yeah, it's likely that my scenario costs less.

So if John Q says he doesn't want to fund such things as his kid’s college education or his wife's lifestyle after he passes away then he is wrong? 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? WOW! I bet you just as many (if not more) share the feelings I express here then may share your feelings about such matters.

You couldn't have said it better. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL!!! But that's all the MP guys do. Sell a one size fits all product. And the whole, "if ours was bad, nobody would buy it" argument is a joke. You know that people buy things that are inferior every day of the week. Just because someone buys your product doesn't make it good or the right product for their situation.

Look, you can try and justify why you do what you do all you want. It doesn't change the fact that many of your clients could have been better served with a medically underwritten policy. Of course that would mean waiting longer on commissions and in many cases being paid as earned. And we know that the MP industry can't survive that way. You need quick commissions and you need them advanced.

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. Yet though carry on, if it gives you some justification to do what it is you do.

I'm sure that many in the MP side of the biz are fine individuals that serve their clients well. 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.

[dvd493]

sman,

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?

[STIBROKER@AUSTIN.RR.COM]

you guys kill me......what if they say this......the insurance company's sell this....selling insurance and having opinions go hand in hand.....just like doctors...you get a second opinion if your smart....is this all the BS that goes through yall's head when you sell that non~med crap.....

Originally Posted by dvd493

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?

is that what you mgr. tells you after reading these threads....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......

[healthagent]

Originally Posted by dvd493

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?
?

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. I did a life case where the husband thought he was 100% perfectly healthy. Turns out his cholesterol was over 290 and he immediately went on meds and a diet. Health comes before anything in life. And believe it or not - health comes before your commission.

[joshril]

I agree... I of course have no need to go to the doctor because I'm a young, healthy, attractive (lol) guy, but I found out my cholestrol was dangerously high from a life insurance paramed a few years back and was able to get it under control... I agree with John. It's about what's best for the client in all circumstances!

[James]

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 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......

Ya'll kill me!

[sman]

Originally Posted by James

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 kid’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.

[sman]

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 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.