Group Health Insurance: IB
- Thread starter newestmember
- Start date
What? You are clueless. If you started your own LLC, who says you can't open a retail account? Many people start companies to trade under for tax reasons. Do you know what the definition of a retail account is? If not, you should look it up. Its simply an account that you fully fund and is under your own name. You can go on with your name calling if that makes you feel better but I'm sure more intelligent will just see you for who you are. I basically said that Etrade said that retail brokers do set up GROUP insurance plans that people can participate in. They won't pay your premiums but the thread was started on group plans. Why does everyone think that LLCs have to be registered prop traders who trade the house's money?
Didn't know you needed em'
Michael B.
Michael B.
Do you need to know about health insurance to offer it? I am sure there are many agents out there who would love to offer a retail brokerage a plan....
Michael B.
Michael B.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. If IB or ET offered group health insurance, who would use it? Mostly those who are currently not able to get affordable individual coverage due to pre-existing conditions or who have lousy individual policies. Anyone already in a good group plan would be unlikely to switch. The result, in my opinion, would be a plan that would better be replaced with a Medical Savings Account.
I have great sympathy for those without medical insurance (excluding those who have decided to "take their chances"). Not only do they risk financial ruin but they end up paying the highest prices for services since they don't get any plan negotiated discounts. This is an issue that the Clinton's brought up way too early for people to comprehend but it is significantly impacting our overall quality of life.
I have great sympathy for those without medical insurance (excluding those who have decided to "take their chances"). Not only do they risk financial ruin but they end up paying the highest prices for services since they don't get any plan negotiated discounts. This is an issue that the Clinton's brought up way too early for people to comprehend but it is significantly impacting our overall quality of life.
I think I am in big trouble now because one year ago, as I prepared to move to Florida, I did not want to use either of my home state health insurance plans when a potentially minor symptom developed (resting heart rate changed from 55-60 to 70-75).
Also, I could not apply for Florida insurance and then immediately start seeing doctors there (pre-existing condition limits). So I was in limbo (still felt perfectly good and seemed healthy), as I went back and forth to Florida over a six month period, getting things set up there. I did not officially change my home state residence, in order to maintain my health insurance here. Then I started feeling worse, had to see home state doctors, and now, because of the delay, I may not live very long. My fault, yes, but if we had universally available health insurance I would have seen a doctor when I first noted something abnormal (as I mentioned to friends at the time), and then I might have been able to live a full life.
It is immoral for the wealthiest country in the world not to provide a guaranteed level of healthcare for all citizens (not just emergency care).
Note, I am under 40, have consistently averaged $80-100k annually trading, and have always paid $300-$400 per month for health insurance (usually duplicate coverage), but because neither of the plans that I had transfer to other states, I wanted to hold off on pursuing what at first seemed minor, because even seeing the doctor for a minor problem can make it much harder to get new health insurance (and if you have something bad, then they will not insure you, or they will exclude anything potentially related to that problem). You also cannot lie to get insurance, because then they can cancel the policy later when you need it.
Ironically, until three years ago, my "backup" health insurance plan (that I had through my undergraduate alumni association) would have been transferable to another state. That was my second policy for nearly 2 years, just for peace of mind and because I was thinking about moving. However, when the insurance company (U.S. Life) started to have some claims from the group (not from me), they just cancelled the whole policy for everyone. It is incredible to me that health insurance companies are not in business to provide "insurance" but rather solely to position themselves so as to make as much money as possible. How can you be certain that your health insurance company will still have a policy for you in five or ten years?
My advice: only buy insurance from big nonprofits - most state BCBS's and others like Kaiser. Unfortunately, these nonprofits' policies are usually only good within that state, so it is difficult to obtain similar coverage if you move, unless you are still healthy. Also, as I looked into the possibility of incorporating and trying to get a one person "group" health plan (with guaranteed coverage and lower premiums), I found that insurance companies are not obligated to offer such policies to one person groups.
Also, I could not apply for Florida insurance and then immediately start seeing doctors there (pre-existing condition limits). So I was in limbo (still felt perfectly good and seemed healthy), as I went back and forth to Florida over a six month period, getting things set up there. I did not officially change my home state residence, in order to maintain my health insurance here. Then I started feeling worse, had to see home state doctors, and now, because of the delay, I may not live very long. My fault, yes, but if we had universally available health insurance I would have seen a doctor when I first noted something abnormal (as I mentioned to friends at the time), and then I might have been able to live a full life.
It is immoral for the wealthiest country in the world not to provide a guaranteed level of healthcare for all citizens (not just emergency care).
Note, I am under 40, have consistently averaged $80-100k annually trading, and have always paid $300-$400 per month for health insurance (usually duplicate coverage), but because neither of the plans that I had transfer to other states, I wanted to hold off on pursuing what at first seemed minor, because even seeing the doctor for a minor problem can make it much harder to get new health insurance (and if you have something bad, then they will not insure you, or they will exclude anything potentially related to that problem). You also cannot lie to get insurance, because then they can cancel the policy later when you need it.
Ironically, until three years ago, my "backup" health insurance plan (that I had through my undergraduate alumni association) would have been transferable to another state. That was my second policy for nearly 2 years, just for peace of mind and because I was thinking about moving. However, when the insurance company (U.S. Life) started to have some claims from the group (not from me), they just cancelled the whole policy for everyone. It is incredible to me that health insurance companies are not in business to provide "insurance" but rather solely to position themselves so as to make as much money as possible. How can you be certain that your health insurance company will still have a policy for you in five or ten years?
My advice: only buy insurance from big nonprofits - most state BCBS's and others like Kaiser. Unfortunately, these nonprofits' policies are usually only good within that state, so it is difficult to obtain similar coverage if you move, unless you are still healthy. Also, as I looked into the possibility of incorporating and trying to get a one person "group" health plan (with guaranteed coverage and lower premiums), I found that insurance companies are not obligated to offer such policies to one person groups.
It seems like a good idea. I've got Blue Cross (ghetto plan).
Insurers seem to give better plans at better prices to groups than to individuals. It probably wouldn't cost a brokerage anything (maybe a few hours a quarter from their HR person).
It would be a good way for a brokerage to lock someone in - if you switch brokerages, you lose your insurance. Better than fighting over who is a penny cheaper on commissions.
Insurers seem to give better plans at better prices to groups than to individuals. It probably wouldn't cost a brokerage anything (maybe a few hours a quarter from their HR person).
It would be a good way for a brokerage to lock someone in - if you switch brokerages, you lose your insurance. Better than fighting over who is a penny cheaper on commissions.