|
Jastiger posted:I'm pretty sure you can, yes. This sounds incredibly open for abuse. What's the catch?
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
The eligibility period is limited to either 30 or 60 days, I don't remember which.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Virtue posted:This sounds incredibly open for abuse. What's the catch? Well if my understanding is correct, there isn't one. COBRA is only offered because its the law, not because medical companies WANT to insure people in this situation. Its designed to be pro consumer in its application, pro business in its cost. As the post above said, the window is very small to prevent exactly this kind of thing, but its there none the less. I guess the "Catch" is that you'd end up paying a ton of money for that one month of premium to get that particular incident covered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
potatoducks posted:I am leaving my current job for a new job that starts within 30 days. From what I understand, I don't have to pay for COBRA right away. However, if I end up getting hit by a car or something during the in between days, then I (or my wife if I am unable) can then apply for retroactive COBRA coverage. Is that correct? Read that as "leaving my current job for COBRA". Thanks for the much needed laugh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Is it possible to get insurance coverage (auto in particular) at reasonable rates if you have a frozen credit file? My understanding is that if your credit file is frozen, which most insurance underwriters check, they assume you have no or super-awful credit and your rates can double or triple or they may just cancel your coverage even if you're a good, long term customer with few or no claims or black marks. Also there are a few states where it's verboten for an insurer to use a credit check as part of underwriting full-stop. I do not live in one of those states. I did talk to my insurance provider (agents for a very major national provider) about this. They were dumbfounded, had no idea this even was a thing, and after some research on their side, their response was arguably "Yeah with us this will probably cause your rates to skyrocket, every other insurance company does this, we do understand your concerns and appreciate your business. With that said, please go eat s***." I'm just interested if other companies treat this differently or even if they (the people I talked to) were full of crap. Three-Phase fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Jun 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Three-Phase posted:Is it possible to get insurance coverage (auto in particular) at reasonable rates if you have a frozen credit file? Any company that is going to be decent is going to vet your credit, that is just unavoidable. There ARE companies that don't do this, or waive it. Companies like The General, SafeAuto, and other non standard carriers. YOu can get legal insurance but you'll probably have a terrible time of it, especially if you DO have good credit and its just being ignored. ALso look at it from an insurance point of view. Why DO you have a frozen credit file? It just screams bad insurance risk (nothing personal!).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
No I understand. I see tons of people yelling about getting your credit frozen to prevent identity theft, but this is one of the biggest and I mean a massive caveat that they fail to mention every time. Insurance companies have said there is a statistical link between really bad credit and bad driving, and that seems to be something that could be demonstrated and it makes sense. My carrier does run a check using one of the big three about 45 days before the renewal occurs, so a compromise may just be to thaw the freeze during that time period, or simply not doing a credit freeze on that CRA that the insurance company uses. What are the biggest caveats of those "nonstandard" providers? (Cost, quality, etc?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
They charge a ton and have awful service. Basically exist to insure the risks nobody else wants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Three-Phase posted:No I understand. I see tons of people yelling about getting your credit frozen to prevent identity theft, but this is one of the biggest and I mean a massive caveat that they fail to mention every time. As the poster above said, they are expensive and aren't there to really help you. They are there to get money from those that can't be insured elsewhere. I think the credit thing is definitely the .ore accident thing but also more likely to not pay their bill, to make a frivolous claim, and also to under insure so they run a risk of maxing out their policy. As I stated earlier in the thread, state minimum are garbage and you really shouldn't have it. A lot of companies penalize you for having it actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Gotcha - that all makes sense. Thanks for the lowdown on all of this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
American citizen recently returned to USA after living abroad for 16+ years. Got my first drivers license in New Zealand at 16, first US drivers license at 26. Shopping for auto in Georgia. Had a hell of a shock/wake-up call when I arrived here and being treated as if I was a 16 year old, first time licensed first year of driving with premiums. Have never had an accident before this etc. good driving record. I found a good agent who managed to get a bunch of discounts locked in with a policy at Travelers but I am still paying what seems like an absurdly high premium of $76.16 per month for a 2003 Honda Civic Hybrid. I asked around and got a bunch of quotes in recent months- and basically none were better than this. I even lodged a complaint with the Insurance Commissioner about refusing to consider my NZ driving/insurance history in calculating their premium to no avail. The better auto options like Costco auto insurance all said their guidelines required three years of driving history in the US to even get a policy. Is this basically it? I have to stick this out for three years and try and shop around again then?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Some companies will remove the lack of prior US insurance if you provide them proof of residency overseas. I'd call direct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Pretty much yeah. Remember, insurance companies have to file their guidelines with thr state. They cant deviate from it. And if the guideline says 3 years, then its 3 years. They cant break the rule. Also youre in Georgia. Over the last year or so, that state has gotten a very bad rap for fraud and claims. The rates and guidelines in that state are going up and getting tighter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Is there any reason not to go with Geico if their coverage is $400 cheaper per year than State Farm for identical coverages? I'm probably going to go with (slightly more expensive) State Farm for life insurance, because that's a company that I'm relying on being solvent in 30 years. But for a 6-monthly car insurance commitment, I have trouble seeing why not to go with the best non-shady price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
kaishek posted:Is there any reason not to go with Geico if their coverage is $400 cheaper per year than State Farm for identical coverages? GEICO isn't really terrible. Especially compared to State Farm. Granted, I don't work directly with either company, but for $400 bux, I'd probably go with GEICO.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
I would do the same. I'm actually insured with GEICO, despite working for someone else. Money is money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
kaishek posted:Is there any reason not to go with Geico if their coverage is $400 cheaper per year than State Farm for identical coverages? Both my homeowner's and auto are with Geico. Make sure you read your policy carefully, since it's unlikely you have an actual "agent" you only get exactly what you select. Limits are not the only factor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Does having an agent really matter to be honest? It's not like they can pull strings to help you out, at least from what I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
They make sure the coverage you have is adequate and proper. Often there isnt a cost difference either. As far as service and claims stuff that generally isnt up to them though, so youre right about that part. If things are the same price, id snag an agent or at the very least discuss it with one before purchasing vs just doing it online
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
That is true I have been given good advice in the past now that I think about it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Question about work insurance. What are the pros and cons of a high deductible medical insurance plan provided through work? My work offers both a high deductible medical plan that comes with savings account and also a more expensive low deductible no savings account. I'm not sure which one to really go for. Just moved to America, so this is new to me. I'm in my 30s and haven't had any serious medical conditions or hospital visits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
I would opt for thr high deductible if it were me. It gives you favorable tax status at end of year since money in the HSA isbl tax deductible. Otherwise its just how it sounds, high deductible if you need it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
I would like to get some life insurance and disability insurance. Some questions: 1) Do you have recommendations for sites where I could easily comparison-shop this sort of thing, or other tips for how to go about shopping? 2) I have been diagnosed with a form of arthritis. Currently it is managed to the point that I don't even think about it most days. Would it even be possible for me to buy disability insurance that would cover me in the event that the pre-existing condition gets worse some day and becomes debilitating? 3) Am I likely to get better coverage for less money if I buy these as a bundle from the same insurer, or should I be shopping for them individually? Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Honestly for life insurance, id hit an independent agent. They will know which carriers are best for your situation with no obligation to buy. Im pretty sure arthritis havers can get insurance no problem, though you may be rated differently. Its not an auto kick out. And for the last one, most companies cant give you a discount on life insurance since by law its all set on a rubrick they cant deviate from. Itd be illegal to insure this guy for less just cuz he has an auto policy. They CAN give you discoints on the other stuff though for having life insurancr
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
I have to re-up on my insurance pretty soon, and I had the state minimum for auto insurance. Do you think I should be worried holding only 25k each person/50k each accident bodily injury and 10k property damage? It's the state minimum, and I notice the insurance sites I've been getting quotes from mention that the average person holds much more insurance. Far as assets, I don't own property, but I do have a decent chunk of change in savings. I've never been in an accident and rarely even go on the freeway, so I haven't really given it much thought but I feel like I should pay for a little more. Also, do you think it's a waste of money to get uninsured/underinsured insurance in a no-fault state? It doesn't cost much, but I passed on it last time because it didn't seem worth it. In Kentucky, we're required to hold 10k in personal injury protection anyway, and I have health insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
Always get more than the minimum. It doesnt matter how much you have in assets, they can sue your rear end and garnish your wages. Kentucky is kind of expensive but if you have a good history its probably trivial to increase your limits. Always get uninsured motorist. Always. Youre more likely to use that than your own bi.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Always get more than the minimum. It doesnt matter how much you have in assets, they can sue your rear end and garnish your wages. Kentucky is kind of expensive but if you have a good history its probably trivial to increase your limits. Okay, I'll get the uninsured motorist, that's a drop in the bucket cost-wise. Far as liability, what would you suggest? Do you think double the minimum would suffice? Nationwide's "standard" coverage suggestion is 100k/300k bodily injury 100k property damage, but it's a tad pricey and equals out to 4x minimum bodily injury and 10x minimum property damage. Also, I notice they have "with tort" as a selection (options for deductible include $1000 with tort, $1000, $500 with tort, $500, and so on) when you're picking the deductible in the personal injury protection category on Nationwide. Does that mean I"m waiving the state's no-fault agreement or something? EDIT: Okay, I asked them about that. So, I can pay more to have more suing power. I've never even seen that option offered on other websites. Not sure if I should pay for the no tort PIP. jarjarbinksfan621 fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 13:59
|
|
|
jarjarbinksfan621 posted:Okay, I'll get the uninsured motorist, that's a drop in the bucket cost-wise. Far as liability, what would you suggest? Do you think double the minimum would suffice? Nationwide's "standard" coverage suggestion is 100k/300k bodily injury 100k property damage, but it's a tad pricey and equals out to 4x minimum bodily injury and 10x minimum property damage. Basically it gives you the ability to sue for more no monetary damages like pain and suffering and the like. Most people I interact with do NOT pick it up to save money, but it IS more coverage. Completely up to you. To your other questions, if it were up to me, everyone would have 100/300 as a minimum, but I'm bias as an agent  .
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Basically it gives you the ability to sue for more no monetary damages like pain and suffering and the like. Most people I interact with do NOT pick it up to save money, but it IS more coverage. Completely up to you. Okay, I'll get more than the minimum, but maybe not quite as high as they suggest. Weigh the options for sure. Far as the tort, I'll defer to the cost-saving preference of most people, because it does cost a good bit more for it, and if I ever need it, there's a good chance I'm a vegetable so put a loving bullet in my head anyway. Thanks for your help. Auto insurance seems like picking a cell phone data plan, but the stakes are much higher. My old coverage that expires tomorrow was barebones as gently caress. And good news is that switching to Nationwide from Progressive is literally gonna save me like 30-35% even though I'm getting much more coverage from Nationwide. Yes, I could technically get MAX coverage and still match progressive. But I was paying a super high premium for being someone who has never had insurance before. Now that I got some history, the other companies are showing me some love. jarjarbinksfan621 fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Jul 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Thats because Kentucky is pretty bad for insurance. It has the tort laws and those states punish for not having insurance. Keep your insurance going in that state, never let it lapse or they will take you over the barrel again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Does $190/mo seem about right for 30 year term life, $1.25 million for me, $500k for my wife? Feels like a lot but I dunno. We're 31 and healthy, but have two little kids I want to make sure are taken care of.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
kaishek posted:Does $190/mo seem about right for 30 year term life, $1.25 million for me, $500k for my wife? Feels like a lot but I dunno. We're 31 and healthy, but have two little kids I want to make sure are taken care of. Ballpark, it doesn't seem too off. 30 year is a longer term and that is for almost $2mil in coverage. If you're not planning on having any other kids, why do need such a long term? Shortening to 20 or 25 should bring that down. We're in a very similar place as you and we went with a 20 and policies since by the time I'm 50 kids should be mostly done from an obligation stand point and we'll have a sizable nest egg (i.e. self insured).
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
app posted:Ballpark, it doesn't seem too off. 30 year is a longer term and that is for almost $2mil in coverage. If you're not planning on having any other kids, why do need such a long term? Shortening to 20 or 25 should bring that down. We're in a very similar place as you and we went with a 20 and policies since by the time I'm 50 kids should be mostly done from an obligation stand point and we'll have a sizable nest egg (i.e. self insured). Well, we actually are planning on having a third child but probably not for a few years. So that adds one more college to cover. We debated a while about the length of the term, and I'm still not sure. My wife isn't working, and if we go as planned for now and I eat it, say, 21 years from now, she'd still have 15 years to go before "retirement" age I would hate for her to have to enter the workforce after 20 years out. So my logic was to pay off any house we may or may not own, pay for three kids through college, and give my wife a few years of income. My wife is cheap to insure, comparatively - my calculation was that we'd pay an extra ~$8,000 over the 30 year term to double her coverage from 250k to 500k. I'm more expensive and then it gets complicated. I hope that we'd be able to self insure by then, but I'm in an unstable job place right now which is probably affecting my judgment on this. I was told it was cheaper to get too much insurance now and downgrade it later, and that if we increased our amounts or term later we'd have to re-do our medical screenings, etc. But I have no way to tell the "opportunity cost" of getting 20 year term now, and changing my mind in 5 years to increase the amount or the duration. How much more is it to get that insurance when you're 36 vs 31?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 14:25
|
|
|
Jastiger posted:Any company that is going to be decent is going to vet your credit, that is just unavoidable. There ARE companies that don't do this, or waive it. Companies like The General, SafeAuto, and other non standard carriers. YOu can get legal insurance but you'll probably have a terrible time of it, especially if you DO have good credit and its just being ignored. Update - I did a little searching and I think that my insurance agent is badly misinformed and didn't actually discuss this with the underwriting department. (They were absolutely dumbfounded when I asked them about the credit freeze.) With a credit freeze on my state, insurers can still access a credit file, it's a specific exception for underwriting purposes. They can at least get a credit score if not access to a whole report. I believe this applies to many other states as well to prevent a SNAFU where the insurer jacks up the rates of someone who has a frozen credit report. After a lot of searching I've also not heard of anyone getting hammered due to a frozen credit report in itself - the problems were people who already had really bad credit. My state also has some laws that say if there is an error or fraud on a credit file, the underwriter has to take that into account or re-run a credit check. (It's more complicated than that, I am paraphrasing like mad.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought from your A/T about power that you were in Ohio? C/D?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought from your A/T about power that you were in Ohio? C/D? Yeah it's Ohio.  Here's there document they made involving insurance and credit: https://insurance.ohio.gov/Newsroom/Tips/Documents/CreditScore.pdf Three-Phase fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jul 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
drat, I learned something new. I didn't think my insurance carrier looked at my credit report, but apparently they're obligated to by law! Thanks for sharing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Wickerman posted:drat, I learned something new. I didn't think my insurance carrier looked at my credit report, but apparently they're obligated to by law! Thanks for sharing. I am pretty sure insurance carriers don't HAVE to look at someone's credit scores when underwriting but many do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
I don't think it's the score so much as the particular information that can be correlated to risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
If the company filed with the state that part of their guidelines include credit, then they have to look unless otherwise specifird. Otherwise itd be unfair for them to ignore it because someone froze their stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2016 14:27
|
|