We have received a few letters on Trevor Thomas's columns, and on the rebuttal to Mark Whitfield we published last issue (January 24, 2011). As always, we will gladly print any letters we receive. On a related note, we are looking for a conservative columnist to run opposite of Trevor's column. Anyone who is interested can contact us at bcoffin@nuco.com.
o I, too, was shocked at seeing Trevor Thomas' articles but, I suspect, unlike most of your readers, it came as a pleasant surprise. I've been an agent and broker in the life and health insurance field for the last 30 years. I have a number of moderately wealthy clients, not billionaires, but with a net worth in the mid eight-figure range, all of whom either own or have recently sold highly successful closely held businesses. As might be assumed, all have substantial annual incomes.
As a result of the continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts, they will not collectively hire one single additional employee. Also, no lifestyle change would have resulted if they didn't get the tax cut, and other than an increase in their own personal investments, I don't think any of their other actions will have much of a beneficial effect on the economy. While they were generally pleased with the result of the compromise, all told me they would not have been seriously disappointed if they lost their tax break.
At a time when we so desperately need to find ways to reduce the deficit, I can't think of anything else that would result in less pain for the great majority of Americans than increasing the tax rates for those individuals whose income is above a reasonably high level.
Aaron Newman
o I enjoy your publication very much and look forward to receiving it. However, I am greatly disturbed with the inclusion of Trevor Thomas as a columnist. Based on my review of his column this week and prior ones, he is nothing more than a liberal loon who is overdosing on Obama Kool-Aid. He has no place in a magazine like this in my opinion. Personally, I feel that Obama and his ilk are trying to destroy the greatest country in the world with his ultra-liberal and socialistic policies. I am old enough to remember Jimmy Carter who was a disaster as President and Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids. Our industry will continue to be attacked by the tax-and-spend crowd and we should focus on those issues versus the political rants of a liberal loon like Mr. Thomas. Thank you for your time and consideration.
John J. Doolan
o As usual, Mr. Coffin, you took one segment of Mark Whitfield's Letter to the Editor Feedback (January 24, 2011) and used it to diminish his main point. He stated "tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore". Why did you not stop there and evaluate what he said. THEY MAY NOT SHOW UP!! Instead you took the last sentence to nullify the whole article. Shame on your liberal bias.
James Iverson
o I'm just amazed that National Underwriter would give Mark Whitfield this much ink to respond to Trevor Thomas's letter. The fact that he gets right to the name calling eludes to his ultra conservative, "I got mine-screw you" attitude so sadly reflected in conservative based politics.
Mark fails to point out, using his silly, ten men & a beer story, that the price of the beers were already inflated to begin with because Mr. Tenth Man had already swung a deal with the bartender for free kickbacks, such as dinner gift cards, etc. if he would bring his other nine friends to that bar to drink. Thus, when the net cost is added up, Mr. Tenth Man privately smiles, once again, knowing that he has actually benefitted more, and paid less, than everyone else at the table.
The problem with conservativebased thinking is it is driven by personal profiteering. Conservatives look at the poor primarily as individuals who are lazy, or poor by choice. They can't understand that, just as most of us don't have the ability to play in the NBA or NFL, not everyone possesses the ability to be savvy at business. Plus, the fact that those who have money, control the flow of money. Thus the deck gets automatically stacked against the individuals who start out poor in life. The rich don't desire adding others to share in their wealth. Maybe we should ask Mr. Whitfield why we currently have a federal tax code so complicated and confusing that it allows people, making millions of dollars a year, to pay an income tax rate equivalent to an individual just above the poverty income level? Would it be because the ones (both conservatives & liberals) responsible for the complicated, biased tax codes are rich and affluent? Why is the income gap between the rich and poor in this great country is wider, and getting wider, than in any other civilized country in the world? Why are the rich so adamantly against a flat tax that would eliminate practically all deductions and make them pay their fair share? It is estimated that over $70 billion is lost each year to the affluent individuals who hide their income. What could the US A do with $70 billion more income?
I suggest Mr. Whitfield turn off the Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannitys, and Savage Nations, and find some compassion in his life. He'll feel a bunch better than simply counting his money all day long.
Doug Melton
o As a health insurance agent for over 25 years and focused primarily on health insurance, I made a very good income which allowed me to provide the service I know clients deserved. Over the last five years it became obvious our industry had lost its way and no longer had clients interests at heart. Personal service, making sure the policy worked the way we sold it and teaching clients how to effectively use their plan has been forgotten for years. After January 1, 2011 we have commission structures that will not allow an agent to concentrate only on selling health insurance. Now agents will have to do more crossselling. This means that agents will have less time in an appointment to teach client how to more effectively use a policy allowing them to obtain an affordable policy that does what health insurance should do. (Most agents have not done that for years anyway.) Cross-selling is good for both the client and agent, but only if the health insurance policy is affordable and the client understands it.
The industry has destroyed the role of the health insurance agent; the Obama Health Bill just finished it up. When insurance companies stopped training and requiring agents to know what they were doing, we had the start of the end. Then when the majority of health insurance was sold over the internet without agent interaction, why did we continue to need agents? Health insurance became a commodity and clients are buying over priced policies with benefits they actually already have if they understood the product.
Does anyone, even Mr. Trevor Thomas, really think the Obama Health Bill will lower cost of health insurance? If so, why is Blue Shield of California asking for a 50% price increase, when BCBS is only asking 39%? Personally, I think the mandate is a good idea, but who will enforce it and where will any penalty go, not to the insurance companies? If our hospitals are to survive we must have a mandate. But if I can obtain health insurance at any time regardless of health, why wouldn't I be willing to pay the minor penalty when coverage cost me twice as much as the penalty? We can't enforce laws we have continued from page 8 for car insurance; if we did, I wouldn't need uninsured drivers or underinsured driver's coverage. (Germany has a way of enforcing this law we should use, no insurance no license plate, the police come and take it.)
There has been and is a lot wrong with our current health insurance system but the Obama Health Bill will not improve it. It just guarantees the United States will join the rest of the world not able to pay for good health coverage with National Health Care. We need National Health Care, but not what we are getting. Mr. Thomas wants a failed system run by the government. What we need is a basic health plan providing good basic coverage for all below a certain gross income, not adjusted, and good private health insurance without all the added coverage marketed by a well trained sells force.
One last thought; all policies should pay the same percent commission, with no higher commission for an individual or family than the same commission paid for the base policy.
Hubert McMinn Jr.
o I rarely write letters to the editor, and never in response to another letter to the editor, but I felt moved to write on this one.
As a tax professional as well as an insurance agent who has lived in four other countries besides the U.S., I really come to believe that comparing income tax burden to income tax burden is not apples to apples, particularly if you are talking about first world countries.
I spent two years living and working in France. My husband, who is French, and I sat down one day about five years ago to calculate our "total tax burden" in the U.S. versus when we lived in France. Sure, on the surface, French taxes are much higher, including their social charges (e.g., Social Security). But even when we took into account the VAT, our tax burden in the U.S. on the same money we were making in France shocked us, especially when you add together the U.S. taxes for federal income tax; state, city & local taxes; property tax; Social Security & Medicare tax; sales tax; car tax and/ or property tax.
Plus, expenses not covered in the US include private childcare costs (in France daycare and nannies are subsidized and/ or included in the regular social charges AND public school starts at age three), health care premiums and related expenses (in France, included in social charges) and higher education expenses (in France, paid for by tax revenues and universities do not have large sports programs to support and pay for).
On a total cost perspective, it is not a "good value" to live in the U.S., particularly when you factor the number of people carrying obscene amounts of student loan debt and/or going bankrupt from medical expenses. And those of us whose lives and jobs are tied to the northeast have some of the highest cost of living rates in the U.S.
This is not to say that everything is rosy in France; universities are very selective, health care is pretty decent but not as customer service oriented, unemployment is high, and people go on strike a lot anytime the government tries to wean them from the robust social benefits. The U.S. is still the place I would prefer to live, but the nickel and diming going on here is pretty impressive and getting worse, thanks to our current government.
Kristin Delfau
What do you think? National Underwriter welcomes your feedback. Post your comments to our online stories or send your letters to the editor to letters@nuco.com.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.