To The Editor:

It is an outrage that you would devote an entire page to Suze Orman and that the piece would be anything less that a scathing denunciation.

Have you ever read what her “9 steps” actually are?

This is from #6: “…Pay attention to your inner voice it will tell you if, how and in what you are investing is right for you.”

Really. Do you think we could get that by the SEC? Why don’t we try because if that’s the case I’ll stop wasting time on this Series 7 mumbo jumbo, or CLU, ChFC, CFP, etc. Who needs all that work? I can just hawk some Suze’s Choice LTC, hold some group meditation sessions. Hey, maybe the Psychic Hotline would be interested in a joint venture.

Or how about #7: “Give a portion of your money to others. By releasing an anxious grasp on your money, you will open yourself to receive all that is meant to be yours.” Hmm. Could there be a subliminal message there? Why don’t we poll a few insurance compliance departments and see what they have to say about that kind of language.

LTC is not my market. But the superficial financial-babble spewed out by Orman is an insult to our entire industry. Does she really think that, rather than sitting face-to-face with a professional agent, consumers will be better served by a network of “tele-agents” selling one policy that has been “packaged” with Suze’s “specific recommendations”? Well, she may think so. I don’t.

I hope GE does not represent so much ad revenue that you fail to deal openly and honestly with this issue in the future.

Dennis M. Munroe, CLU
MassMutual Financial Group
Portsmouth, N.H.

Editor’s note: We would remind Mr. Munroe that it was a news article he read about an unusual marketing venture by a major player in the LTC area, and therefore of interest to our readers as competitive information. In a news story, a denunciation, scathing or otherwise, would be inappropriate (as would, for that matter, indiscriminate praise).

To The Editor:

I read both Jack Bobo’s Feb. 18 column and Edward Stoeber’s letter regarding the proposed victim’s compensation fund. I think Mr. Stoeber is the one that may be missing the point. If you support his comments about the fund providing for widows and small children when a breadwinner dies unexpectedly without insurance, then you would have to assume that all survivors should be supported by the government when left without insurance benefits, no matter what the cause of death.

I am sure that somewhere in this country a mother or father died on Sept. 11 from a car accident or heart attack. I wonder what their survivors think about the government victim’s fund for the Sept. 11 survivors. Who is taking care of them?

I agree that the Sept. 11 events are unique in our history but dying is not unique–it happens to all of us and failure to plan for our families in the event of our death (especially by educated white collar workers with adequate incomes) is irresponsible.

We make choices on how to spend our money. When we say no to purchasing enough protection for our families in favor of buying bigger houses, newer cars, and expensive vacations, we make the choice as to what is important to us. If we don’t think it is important to protect our own loved ones, then why should the government (i.e., taxpayers) have to take on this responsibility?

Carol Ignash

Via e-mail


Reproduced from National Underwriter Life & Health/Financial Services Edition, March 18, 2002. Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.


Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company. All rights reserved. Contact Webmaster