Skip navigation

Chris Hansen from Dateline on this forum

or Register to post new content in the forum

57 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Apr 19, 2008 3:09 pm
I am not trying to argue that they should be outlawed, but your argument is flawed.  Government sometimes has to outlaw things that will help some for the good of the whole.  It's not communism.    Example:  Drugs and the FDA Many medical drugs are not approved by the FDA because the negatives outweigh the positives.  Should those drugs be legal because they can help some people?   Listen, all I really want is for increased guidance and oversight.  These insurance companies need to be required to monitor for suitability and be punished for not doing so.  It seems like it comes down to the State insurance departments being either lazy or underfunded.    
Apr 21, 2008 4:49 pm

DK, the whole government should protect us thing is a slippery slope. Do you really want government fuctionaries making decisions for you? And where does that end? Too much regulation is a problem in this country.

  I'll give you a case in point: Let's say your spouse wanted to set up a simple baby sitting service. In most states your spouse would have to have facilites that contain certain per child square footage requirements, have triple sinks, changing tables, and meet the same sanitary codes as full time day care centers. Additionally, the facility would have meet certain staffing requirements, including having a full time director and a director of curriculum. Both these individuals need to meet certain educational requirements the least of which is a four year degree. All staff must submit to criminal background checks conducted by the state. The curiculum must meet certain state mandated requirements. Next comes the local zoning requirements, which because the state classifies you as a day care center so do they. You need a dedecated water supply just for the fire surpression system. By the way, did i mention that you need a fire surpression system? At this point your spouse says, but all I want to do is watch a couple of kids for a few hours a day? The state and town say Ok, but you must comply, not only for the well being of the children, but for yours as well. And non compliance will be dealt with via severe penalties.  And so it goes when the state makes the decisions for our own good.     The government can't do anything as well as the free market. If EIAs aren't a good thing the free market will eventually send them to the circular basket. We need less government, not more.
Apr 21, 2008 5:47 pm
BondGuy:

We need less government, not more.

  BG...I'm starting to think I've got your party affiliation wrong...that sounded positively Reagan-esque.
Apr 21, 2008 8:01 pm

When he fired the ATC I wasn't much of a fan. However, living in the highest property tax state in the nation, NJ, where it's Ok to spend $7,000,000 on party connected consultants to develope a plan to sell the Turnpike, but then close state parks to save $4,000,000, has made me a real Reagan groupie. We could use a guy like him.

 
Apr 22, 2008 12:00 am

[quote=Dark Knight]

  Example:  Drugs and the FDA Many medical drugs are not approved by the FDA because the negatives outweigh the positives.  Should those drugs be legal because they can help some people?  [/quote]   Things we consume where the negatives outweigh the positives: chocolate cake, beer, Krispy Kreme donuts, pancakes with syrup, etc. Shouldn't we regulate these items, as well? If we get universal health care, look for it to happen. Far fetched? Nah. If Uncle Sam is paying for health care, doesn't that give them the right to restrict consumption of these  "dangerous" foods? ...Didn't your father ever tell you: "If I pay your bills, you live by my rules"? 
Apr 22, 2008 4:01 am

So let me get this straight, each of you who is calling for less goverment not more actually believes we need less oversight for EIA’s? 

  Please raise your hand if you believe the insurance and securities oversight bodies should DECREASE their oversight of the sales practices being used on seniors with EIAs.      
Apr 22, 2008 10:48 am

Hand Raised.

  As long as the sales rep can produce proof that the prospect was provided the pertinent information. For example, concerning CDSC's, if the senior was provided information showing that the EIA had a 15-year CDSC, but still signed on; the sales rep has done their job, in my opinion.   Or maybe we should just ban old people from investing in anything other than CD's. Does that sound good, "big brother"?   Listen, I don't sell EIA's, but if you want to invest in something like that and you're aware of its characteristics, go for it. It's called freedom. Freedom to be smart, freedom to be stupid. The alternative is called Clinton / Obama; i.e., communism.
Apr 22, 2008 1:37 pm

From a legal, CYA standpoint, you're probably correct, doberman.

However, I feel very strongly against the idea that "providing information showing that the EIA had a 15-year CDSC" is sufficient. It takes me a significant amount of time to become even vaguely familiar with the intricacies of these things, and you honestly believe a 75-year-old retired oil refinery worker is going to have even the slightest clue as to what they're getting themselves into?     Sure, you can get away with it legally, but is it the right thing to do ethically and morally?   I'm patiently waiting for the day when I get to casually discuss EIAs with the guys across town who sell them exclusively. I promise you I will be able to stump them on some very basic features of the contracts their peddling.   Crooks... 
Apr 22, 2008 3:21 pm

Hand raised.

  More government protection eqauls trading rights for protection. The more we expect government to protect us from ourselves the pathetic we become.
Apr 22, 2008 5:35 pm

DarkKnight, my hand is also up.  I am not a seller of EIA’s.  The problem isn’t lack of oversight.   It’s oversight without teeth. 

Apr 22, 2008 9:46 pm
anonymous:

DarkKnight, my hand is also up.  I am not a seller of EIA’s.  The problem isn’t lack of oversight.   It’s oversight without teeth. 

  Improved/increased don't use semantics to disagree with me when you are actually agreeing.
Apr 23, 2008 11:01 am
 "Improved/increased don't use semantics to disagree with me when you are actually agreeing."   Dark Knight, I'm not even close to agreeing with you.   There is a huge difference and it's not semantics.   I am calling for less oversight.  With increased oversight, the baby often gets thrown out with the bath water.  Many registered reps have lost the ability to sell EIA's even if they can document that the EIA is suitable for the client.  Heck, they can't even sell them if the rep can document that the EIA is what is best for the client.   I would like decreased oversight with lots of teeth.  This is not specific to EIA's, but germaine to all actions of insurance agents and registered reps.   If someone is doing something with the intent of ripping off people, they should be permanently barred from the industry and criminally prosecuted.  What happens now?  They move to another company and continue to cheat people.   Products don't screw people.  The problem is with unscrupulous reps.   I'll give you a drinking and driving analogy.  I happen to think that this is pretty bad crime for a number of reasons.  However, the solution isn't to lower the allowable blood alcohol levels and have sobriety check points at every corner, and make everyone who leaves a bar blow into a breathalzyer.  Rather, the answer is to make the punishment for people who get caught certain and severe.     With most things, I'm for the combination of less oversight and greater punishment.
Apr 23, 2008 2:03 pm

Well, while you may not agree with me I sure as heck agree with you.  (not sure what the difference is.)  Amen to your post 10 times over.

Apr 23, 2008 2:39 pm

[quote=Dark Knight]Well, while you may not agree with me I sure as heck agree with you.  (not sure what the difference is.)  Amen to your post 10 times over. [/quote]

You said: "Listen, all I really want is for increased guidance and oversight."

Anon said: “I would like decreased oversight with lots of teeth.”

So you agree with Anon that you disagree with you?  Or do you disagree that Anon doesn’t agree with your disagreement about agreeing?  Or … um …

What were we talking about again? 

Apr 23, 2008 3:42 pm

Again you are trying to mix a bunch of words, the point is that I want these bastards gone after just like anon.  Maybe I didn’t use the right words, so sue me.  I hate what these crooks do and so apparently does he.  I hope you are having fun with a he said he said blah blah blah.  Maybe you guys just like to argue.  

Apr 23, 2008 4:57 pm

[quote=Dark Knight]Again you are trying to mix a bunch of words, the point is that I want these bastards gone after just like anon.  Maybe I didn’t use the right words, so sue me.  I hate what these crooks do and so apparently does he.  I hope you are having fun with a he said he said blah blah blah.  Maybe you guys just like to argue.   [/quote]
Now I really disagree with that!  Let’s argue that point a bit …

I was having some fun with you, dark knight.  Relax a bit, will ya?  You can buy the next round …

May 14, 2008 6:14 am

New client arrived after years of dealing with an insurance only rep.  I have to say the client is mostly at fault here, they kept doing things that just did not make sense.  The clients son finally stepped in after he learned the ins. agent took $10k form the client to invest in a failing restaurant.  I mean this is out right insurance fraud lose your license type of stuff.  What else did he sell her?  Multiple EIA's, each year the free surrender went into a new one.  And a Universal Life policy that supposedly had a LTC rider, which upon my review had no such rider and now every dollar of her money is either in EIA's and the one UL.  And of course the minor interest in a failing restaurant that the agent is slowly paying her back for.  What is the client doing, waiting to get paid back before she reports him!  So, bad agent but worse a foolish client.  I recommended they talk to the insurance guy downstairs!