Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 12:29:39 -0400
From: judy morris 
Subject: From an Insurance Agent

IYAMHUIYAM@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Judy-
> 
> You're not alone.  My story is with Paul Revere/Provident.  As of last week
> they want to cut me off benefits following 8 years with Fibromyalgia.  Two
> years ago they moved me to a residual claim, which  "brain fog" prevented me
> from comprehending. (It didn't matter at the time because I received full
> benefit.  Last week their adjuster walked in and asked why I think I can't
> return to work fulltime!  I had a second disability insurance, as well as a
> business overhead policy when I took ill...These policies were "contested"
> and I was in no condition to fight.
> I have been a bit stronger for 6-8 weeks, and my memory and cognitive skills
> are returning....I don't plan on getting mad (I haven't the strength for that
> );  but I do plan on gettting even.
> I found Newsgroups at about 1AM this morning. I am new to the net,and probably
> could not have navigated prior to recently.  So I think this e-mail is going
> to you vs. posted on your letter.  You can re-post.
> Ready for the Kicker?  I am the insurance agent- I sold lots of disability
> insurance to my professional clients.   I also made a good living as an expert
> witness in insurance litigation matters.  This could never happen to me!
> Thank God none of my clients have sued me for selling them this hope and
> prayer.
> I await your response as to how we may help each other.
> Sincerely,  Caryn  IYAMHUIYAM@aol.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 13:43:32 -0400
From: judy morris 
Subject: Sorry to overwhelm you guys but I wanted to share this discussion

IYAMHUIYAM@aol.com wrote:
> 
> Thanks-
> 
> As the agent, and having sold both Prvident and Paul Revere, as well as other
> companies....I found Provident to be fairer, until recently.   The insurance
> industry really became vigilant in their pushing agents to sell disability
> coverage about 15 years ago- women were given unisex rates, professionals saw
> rates drop dramatically, language was liberalized as were clauses for mental
> &nervous, cost of living,etc.  At first  claims were paid .  The companies
> really did not have the experience that they need to establish rates based on
> criteria necessary...this generally takes many years to establish.
> Please keep me posted,  I'll do likewise. 

My answer:

Here's the way I see it.  Insurers pushed these policies on people for
two reasons.  1) they used old actuarial statistics from the 60's and
70's showing the doctors, lawyers, and white collar workers had low
rates of claiming disability (I don't know if the policies in the 60's
were occupation specific or required total disability which would
account for the low rates of claims anyway), 2) they didn't take into
account modern medicine which saves many people from death but leaves
them chronically disabled, nor did they take into account emerging
illnesses, global travel bringing in unusual diseases, AIDS, CFS, Lyme
Disease, and increasing pressures of all jobs (most doctors and lawyers
can no longer determine their own hours or duties.)

In other words they never had any intention of paying these claims.  
Initially UNUM and Provident paid because they could not get OUT of
paying LEGALLY.  Then when their profits started to become affected in
the early nineties and now with lobbyists, judges and legislators in
their pockets, they began bending the legal system to make it next to
impossible to get a fair trial on a denied insurance claim due to the
expense, time and legal tricks involved.  In actuality what's happening
in insurance is exactly what the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations) was meant to combat: legitimate businesses
infiltrated by "enterprises" that use ILLEGAL methods, including Fraud,
extortion, bribery of politicians, false advertising, harassment,
intimidation, bribery of the media, and hired legal protection.

In many cases HMO's are actually guilty of premeditated murder because
if they have a LEGAL obligation to cover some service, they don't
provide it and the patient dies, THAT RESULT should have been forseen.
In many cases when the cases go to court, the courts actually find that
they insurance company DID have a duty to provide the service that would
have saved the patient, but decline to enact any penalty because they
are calling this malpractice (pre-empted by ERISA), instead of what it
is - Premeditated Murder.  Remember if the dead claimant had not COUNTED
on the promises of the insurance company to help them, they would have
sought help elsewhere and gotten the care and may still be alive.

The legal system has been manipulated and distorted so everyone thinks
this ERISA thing protects them and Attorney Generals, US Attorney's and
the DOJ are just looking away because it's not politically, financially,
or career-wise a good move to take on the insurance industry today.

Judydoc