Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:02:16 CST
From: "Caroline" 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: Health insurance,  unemployed!
	iQBVAwUAQBMHiPl/I4+O31e5AQHNmAIAhDIZ71pbLfdNtkJqreNww+cuVGjjp5NH
	iFCAWSkTopBsNqH5FumiIDH0Wxw+IpfbKkfkWD9YUanw0j7yeDYRJw==
	=koBn

"TB"  wrote
> Caroline wrote:
> > "Brent D. Gardner, ChFC" wrote
> >
> >>Rule #1 -- When you have questions about health insurance, you need a local
> >>agent. Period. Nobody else that responded yet fits that description.
> >>
> > Health insurers do ask for one's state of residence, among other pertinent
> > information, before providing a quote, if a quote can be provided online.
For
> > more complicated health insurance plans, obviously an online quote cannot
always
> > be done.
> >
> > Getting the regulations right for each state is a matter of having access to
a
> > good database. This is absolutely no big deal. Good ol' fashioned healthy
market
> > competition has made it thus.
>
> I gotta agree w/Brent on this one...there's no good reason not to use an
> agent, and at least from my experience the net option was awful.

I think there are some miscommunications happening here.

I am recommending an online health insurance search engine only as a first step,
to allow a client to see what's out there, very roughly.

My experience began with an online health insurance search engine. It steered me
to what I felt was a competitive rate (based on several rates and plans listed)
and then, ultimately, a live agent. Except for the initial search, all
subsequent transactions were done by phone. At the time of my first search, I
had no idea who even offered short-term plans. Not all health insurers do.

If I'd called an agent cold, I'd only know about his/her particular product. I
wouldn't necessarily get any kind of unbiased cross-section.

I think with these online search engines, the chance of a good, impartial,
preliminary recommendation of insurers is better.

> I used
> ehealthinsurance.com a couple years ago for my MSA-compatible plan. It
> seemed an EZ way to do it because there were only 2 plans in CA at the
> time and one had clearly better deductibles.
>
> Unfortunately I also applied through the site, and they totally dropped
> the ball. The insurer wanted clarification on something in the medical
> history (who on earth can remember doctor visits 15 years ago!?)

You do realize requiring such history is not unique to online applications?

> but
> somehow that didn't get back to me, and they couldn't seem to figure out
> the status of my app week to week.  Long story short, without an agent
> involved in the process what should have taken a couple weeks took about
> 3 months, letters, phone calls - and it was all avoidable.

Funny, I had the exact same experience with Blue Cross/Blue Shield a few years
ago. Not online. With an agent.

Also, you never spoke with a live person in this process?

> Anectdotal I know, but w/health I think the net is OK for research but
> it's better to work w/an agent for picking & applying.

> This isn't like
> other types of insurance - eg auto, where it's a very straightforward
> transaction that largely gets down to cost. With health there's a wide
> range in coverage and the open question of which plans/insurers are best
> (or even possible) given whatever set of preexisting conditions you
> have, or ailments you're worried about in the future. I don't think
> health agents have to worry about job security anytime soon!

I just don't see how there's much distinction at all. Pre-existing conditions
exist with auto insurance, too. E.g. how many speeding tickets one had. The
variations seem entirely comparable with health insurance.

What are you recommending, anyway? The client go to the Yellow Pages and pick
out an insurance company, and call them cold? Can we say, "shark bait"?
Kidding, but you know what I mean.

And yes, just as car salesman loathe internet car deals, I imagine many
financial agents loathe people who do internet research.