Readers voiced their opinions this week on everything from PPACA to Amy Grant. Check out some of our favorites, and then submit your own comments on any story on LifeHealthPro.com.
In response to Working with Seniors: Make Sure They Understand Annuities
“How can anyone with any form of mental impairment (no matter how slight) be of sufficiently sound mind to enter into a legally binding contract with certainty? How can anyone with any form of mental impairment be reasonably expected to completely understand and remember what (s)he has agreed to? Do you really think that the judge, jury or general public will accept that contract later as legitimate or legally binding, or will it be seen as a form of coercion on the part of the insurer and/or material misrepresentation on the part of the applicant that (s)he is of sound mind?
“If the applicant’s family is necessary to join the contract negotiations to support a mentally impaired person’s agreement to that contract, wouldn’t it make more sense for the family to own the policy themselves and simply make the mentally impaired applicant a beneficiary? Isn’t a fair and honest deal supposed to rest on the full competence and good faith of the parties involved?
“The best interests for all concerned is to keep anyone with the slightest evidence of mental impairment from being a party in any kind of legally binding contract. Extensive time and effort spent in defiance of this fundamental truth will bring nothing but sorrow, regret and woe to all the parties involved, guaranteed.”
In response to This Looks Like a Job for…Amy Grant?
A.P. Hill said:
“Agree 100%. The increasingly erratic behavior of the NAIC brings closer the day when regulation will be a federal responsibility, not the states. What are they thinking?”