Yes, a level playing field will be welcomed. They lowered NY assessments to suit themselves, can offer any discount they feel necessary, can surcharge any account they feel necessary, and if a 30 Reservation of Rights is recvd by them, they will solicit insured direct offering discounts! Yes, this will be welcomed by all in NY. About time.
You really think this will be welcomed by all in NY. How about all the NY business’s that will have to pay higher comp bills because of this. At least Tracy is honest. This is all about the Fund not paying commissions and brokers being greedy.
Sorry John, it is not all about commissions. It is about the unfair advantages that the State Fund has given itself. Lower assessments, no commission payout and no need to follow the same rules and have to pay into the Trust fund on losses. They can adjust the policy debits up at will.
Yes, it would be nice to receive even a 1% commission on policies we write through them, but what we want is to allow fair competition with the standard markets for the insureds to have a choice.
The advantages are not unfair. If you have a bad risk, you can just drop it. NYSIF cannot drop anyone so it has to be able to raise the price on it’s “bad” risks. As far as the assessment, you seem to be arguing that NYSIF should not give it’s “good” risks the cheapest price possible. The comp law requires that NYSIF premiums be fixed at the lowest possible rates consistent with a solvent fund. This does not seem like a bad thing to me.
I am going to have to agree with John here. The guy obviously knows what hes talking about. The State Fund by law MUST insure anyone that applies for a policy. It doesnt have the luxury of dropping bad risks or turning away high risk industries. How many private carriers are willing to take on contracting risks? Not many. 9/11? Lets see how many private carriers are down when they start building on the Trade Center site. This is a commission issue, so take this nonsense to the private carriers and tell THEM they need to change THEIR routine to compete. Lets try to remember that NYSIF and the whole workers comp law system was created to help workers, not to fill anyones wallet.
The market of last resort argument does not justify the government participating in predatory market practices by creating a highly subsidized competitive insurer. As a government agency, the Fund does not pay any taxes — i.e., it is keeping 35% more of its profits than private insurers and using it to lower prices on the best risks in the state. There is no other way to say it: This is unfair competition.
I just got back from the year 2015 and this whole movement turns out to be an epic failure. Not only that, but by late 2012 people realize that if they are competent enough to run their own business, they are also competent enough to be able to fill out their own Workers Comp Applications. This essentially makes insurance brokers obsolete. Fortunately, rollerskating makes a huge comeback and many out of work brokers find employment in newly built roller-rinks as concession stand workers.
I agree with John. The State Fund is able to lower premiums for business in NYS. This should be looked on as a positive. The broker should not be concerned about being paid for the workers compensation. If they are they can charge a service fee. When they are writing the complete account(GL, auto, umbrella etc) they are receiving income from all other lines of business. Isn’t it good for New York to pay lower workers compensation costs? If the way the State Fund operates changes the only one who suffers are the policyholders. This does not seem logical.
I agree with John too. Insurance (doesn’t matter what variety) is always a scam, because when you need it insurance companies will fight tooth and nail not to have to make a payout. This being said, thank god we actually have a company like NYSIF that can help out new business owners in NYS in terms of premium. This nonsense seems to be strictly about brokers and their lack of commission when placing a company with NYSIF. Looks like they might need to just raise their broker fee and leave the politickin’ to the big boys.
don’t service them then. only broker for companies that want private carriers. be like, “you want state fund? I’m out.”
On a side note, I have had a policy with the state fund since 1987 and i love it. you know the commercial that says “like a good neighbor, state farm is there”? thats nonsense, it should be “like a good neighbor, state FUND is there”. State fund takes care of people. if you go away on vacation for a few days state fund will come over to your house and feed your cat for you. Name one other insurance company that will do that. you cant, cuz there isnt one.
I’m afraid Fred you live a sheltered life. Let me see, you must be a bureaucrat, one that gets paid even while sitting on the comode or at the water cooler. I only get paid if I make a sale and then only if the customer is pleased enough to renew with me. How would you like to work on commission only? If the customer is displeased it’s easy to fire me, but not you! It’s next to impossible to fire a bureaucrat!
Wee Rick, if you place the workers compensation anywhere except the State Fund most likely your customer will not be pleased since he will be paying more then he has too. Sometimes you have to accept the income generated by the balance of the account and do what is in the insureds best interest. You may even be able to retain the business for a longer period of time. I guess as a commission based salesman that is not necessarily your goal.
i have been reading these comments all day long and have decided to put my two cents in. Rick seems to be a whiny little pest who wants to rock the boat. whats the matter rick, dont like to save money? never stole toilet paper from a public restroom when you were in college so you could save up some coin for friday night? never bought regular paper plates instead of them fancy goddamn flowery print ones? look, NYSIF provides a reliable product at a hell of a price, who can blame people for wanting it? so theres no commission on it… too bad, so sad, go tell your granddad.
no sir, im no bureaucrat. ive been fighting the system like a modern day robin hood since you were a sperm. i work hard and i play hard and if you cant grasp the idea that paying less for something is a good thing i obviously cant help you. explain to your bosses that state fund is the product thats being sold, and since there is no commission on it because state fund is trying to keep the prices down (imagine that, a government agency actually trying to keep prices down) maybe they can throw you and all the other little broker people a bone.
What some of you folks seem to be unaware of is the SIF’s nasty practices. For example: if they make a mistake on an audit (not unheard of, believe me) and a broker or an insured calls to bring it to their attention, their attitude often is, “Pay the amount and we’ll adjust it later” (i.e., give us a loan even though we screwed up).
The fact that they can and do over charge some risks and yet give big discounts to others only means that they too are playing Robbing Hood, stealing from the desperate and giving to the more attractive risks, that the SIF ought not to be writing anyway.
Why not make SIF have to answer to the insurance dpeartment?
By the way, I do charge a fee to place and service risks in the Fund, and I still hate them.
At the completion of an audit it is signed by either an accountant or an officer. if there is an issue (i.e. the assured believes the audit is wrong) it should be dealt with then and there. if the assured does not have the proper records at the time of the audit he or she scheduled that is not the fault of the state fund. More often than not brokers and assureds will not pay their bill, then wait until the day the policy cancels for nonpayment of premium to call and not so politely question it instead of getting on the horn and dealing with it earlier.
as for the allegation of overcharging the risks, state fund has the right to compensate for its payouts by raising the differential on companies that have poor loss records. Teams of experts meet and analyze the data to determine these changes. private insurance companies would simply tell these companies to get lost.
and awarding the companies that have a great track record and have been loyal customers? how is this bad?
the state fund answers to the workers comp board, the workers compensation rating board AND the insurance department.
back before 1914 on the job injuries meant you and your family were prolly going to end up homeless, then the law was passed to require insurance, and guess what, NYSIF was there to offer it. all these other upstart insurance companies can cry all they want, but they just cant hold a candle to the original.
I personally have had experience with the fund where it tried to charge a HUGE surcharge on a new risk, merely because they thought they could get away with it. Until I went to a second level supervisor, it was going to stay with that monster surcharge. To me that’s trying to steal from an unfortunate in order to be able to give a lot off for a more attractive risk.
What you say about audits is very nice in theory. I can remember (albeit, a number of years ago) where an error was made by the SIF auditor. It was a decimal point error amounting to a few thousand dollars to the SIF’s benefit. The response we and the insured got was, “Pay the audit premium and then you can dispute it.”
I have also seen, again, in years past, when there were credits from audits and instead of actually returning premiums, they were merely applied to the future. Regualr companies couldn’t get away with that.
I admit that the Fund has an important place in NY, but it has gotten far too independent and needs stronger oversight. I have also had occasion where SIF employees who were extremely difficult to understand due to foreign accents, had attitudes such that they knew they were civil service employees and therefore did not have to be as sensitive as people at companies where their income depended on their companies’ success.
If you look at the IJ article and the text of the bill, you will see that nothing in the bill addresses commission. This bill is about making an insurance provider subject to the same regulatory authority that oversees private insurers. If the State Fund wants to compete on price, great! Just make them submit their rating plans to the NY Insurance Dept. for approval, like the private carriers have to.
And the 30-day cancellation notice requirement is NOT friendly to NY businesses. It actually ties their hands and makes it harder for them to exercise choice in the market. Every other insurer must cancel upon the insured giving advance notice. No other insurer has a 30-day advance notice requirement written into law. It serves no useful insurance buyer protection purpose.
No one wants to deny low-cost insurance to NY employers. We don’t want *no* competition, we want *fair* competition. Yes, brokers want to be paid for their services, but current law allows them to charge service fees for that. Just remember that a broker does more than help an insured fill out the app. The broker is the insured’s advocate when there’s a loss or an audit problem.
This is not about *greedy* brokers, as some posters want to believe. It’s about fair competition, no more, no less.
Why do you assume that this will raise costs for NY employers? Why will requiring the NYSIF to answer to the Insurance Dept. and taking away the special 30-day cancellation notice requirement necessarily lead to higher rates? I don’t see the connection.
Well, it seems obvious that premiums within the State Fund would have to increase if they have to start making payments into the aggregate trust fund. In addition, premium would increase if they must charge the higher NYS assessment charge. Currently this benefit is being passed along to policyholders. That would disappear with these changes in the law. It is apparant, the business’ in NY will be the ones to suffer.
You’re blowing smoke and everyone on this board knows it. Private companies submit multiple rate plans (AIG-A, AIG-B, AIG-C, ect) so they can rate the policies as they want. How is this any different from NYSIF’s discount or differential? Will you let NYSIF submit multiple rate plans also? How will this change anything? And if you really do more than fill out the app, what’s the big deal with you giving 30 days notice. If you beat NYSIF’s price, you win. If NYSIF counters with a lower price, it’s because of you that your client is paying less, they love you and are more loyal to you, you still collect on their other insurance, you still win. Changing this system WILL result in higher prices for your clients. If you are really looking out for their interest, you would be against this bill
Hey, the private insurers don’t want to pay into the Aggregate Trust Fund or charge the higher NYS assessment, either. If the NYSIF doesn’t have to do these things, then give the private market the same exemptions. If the private market can’t have those exemptions, then the NYSIF shouldn’t have them. That’s really all we’re asking for.
Thats all nice and well, but its probably not going to happen. You should concentrate your energy on something that you CAN change, like global warming.
What will happen if this goes through is The State Fund will have to pay into the aggregate truut fund and the assessment charge will increase. It will not happen in the reverse. The bottom line outcome will be increased cost to business. Is this the ultimate goal?
As far as the assessment charge goes, I believe that NYSIF is paying the full assessment charge, it’s just not charging it’s insured’s the full assessment. I don’t think anyone’s going to care if the private companies don’t pass this charge on to their customers either. So it seems your only real gripe (except for wanting business’s to pay more so you can make more money) is over the Aggregate Trust Fund. Can I assume you are going to change your bill so it only address’s this concern now?
Again, this is about leveling the playing field. If the private insurers and the NYSIF play by the same rules and the NYSIF ends up being the low-cost/high-value insurer, then tough for the private insurers. That’s not the situation we have right now — a government-sponsored insurer has competitive advantages by law that the private insurers lack. You can say all day that my agenda is to rob NY employers, but that doesn’t make it so. All we want is a fair game. Period.
These posts are a farce. It’s quite apparent by what these people are psoting that they are plants with a vested interest in the State Insurance Fund. Their knowledge of the workers comp system (i.e. aggregate trust fund payments, etc)and their bringing up paying commisssions bears this out. If the State Fund becomes the main or only source of Workers Comp coverage in NY we will loose even more businesses than we already are. If you think governement run entities are a good idea just have an issue and deal with the DMV. Fair and equal competition is good and forces all concerned to work hard to earn business. If the State Fund is such a great experience why are their still quite a few businesses insured elsewhere. At least the IIABNY guy was honest about who he was when he posted
Everyone who posts here is going to have knowledge of the workers comp system. They wouldn’t have even read the article if they didn’t. I for one, am not a “plant” and I never claimed not to have a vested interest in NYSIF (that should be apparent if you’ve read my posts). NYSIF is not trying to become the sole source of WC. When have you last seen a NYSIF commercial? Most people are under the misconception that NYSIF was created as the “carrier of last resort”. This is not true. NYSIF was created to be a competitive force in the marketplace to keep the prices of this mandatory insurance as low as possible. Private Insurance companies goals are to set prices as high as they can to maximize shareholder profits. This isn’t wrong. It’s what all private for-profit companies do. The lawmakers simply didn’t want this rule applied to WC. NYSIF, by law, sets it’s prices at the lowest possible rates consistent with the maintenance of a solvent fund. Now private companies must either beat NYSIF’s price or let NYSIF write it. Either way NYSIF lowered the price for the insured. What this bill will do is limit NYSIF’s stabalizing role in the WC market. In other words, this will let the for-profit insurance co’s do what they are supposed to do, maximize profits. Higher prices for NYS business’s for a MANDATORY insurance that they cannot opt out of. Based on all the insurance company scandals of the last few years, I think the only result of this bill will be much higher premiums for the average NY business.
I think John has fairly settled the matter. SIF was created when no one else wrote WC (it is not a late entreant designed to spoil commissions). Most of the policies are pathetically small and require lots of hand holding.
Private companies are free to let new businesses establish a loss run record with SIF and then cherry pick ’em.
SIF is government and by definition and enabling lesgislation is can not make a profit. It is obligated to return any surplus to policyholders as a dividend or a discount.
Private carriers, by the way, only pay taxes on profits and they get to premium dollars in tax exempt bonds.
Perhaps the commission guys should surf less and get out and make calls. Press the flesh. You ain’t seeing while you read this!
You imply that private insurance companies set rates but I believe the rates in New York have been set by the Work Comp Board. That is actually the problem this bill seeks to correct. The State Fund has the ability to apply discounts and lower assessments than the private carriers so they can pick and choose who they want to write and they can then charge premiums lower than the carriers thus eliminating private carriers from being competitive if they wanted to. Why is the State Fund so afraid to provide a level playing field for writing Workers’ Comp? Why do they not want to fall under the jurisdiction of the New York Insurance Department, an agency tasked with the protection of consumers and the responsibility to make carriers that write coverage in New York comply with the rules and regulations. That is all this bill seeks to do.
I never heard of this workers’ compensation thingy before. You mean I am supposed to have some sort of special insurance for my workers (I own a factory in Liverpool, NY and have 5000 employees).
Does anyone know how I can get in touch with the NYSIF to talk about how to get this special insurance because the NYSIF sounds like a really really great company and, according to everone on this board, has the lowest prices.
I hope I don’t get into any trouble for not having this special type of insurance thingy!
You obviously don’t understand how comp works. The rates are set by the Rating Board (not the comp board). Insurance co’s then submit their rate deviation (How much lower they are going to charge all their insured’s). They get around this by forming multiple companies For example: aig-a, aig-b, aig-c, ect. aig-a will give everyone a 30% discount, aig-b will give everyone a 25% discount, ect. This way they can “set” the price according to risk of their insured by which of their companies they place the risk in. NYSIF does the same thing but without the multiple companies.
It’s exactly the same!!!!!!
The only difference is they don’t have companies set up with surcharges because they simply don’t write those risks. And what makes you think NYSIF is not under the jurisdiction of the New York Insurance Department. They currently send NYSIF many inquiry’s and NYSIF MUST answer them. Again, the only thing this bill will do is raise the cost of doing business in NYS. This is not fair to do to an insurance that is mandatory and which they cannot opt out of.
The bottom line is if the law gets changed to “level the playing field” the private insurance companies win (more profit) and the businessowners in New York State lose. Seems logical.
How would it be in the State Fund were to write personal auto? There was a time when getting personal auto in NY was quite difficult (as it once was for WC), and perhaps the Fund would make personal auto companies have to try harder to compete. If the Fund also had its own set of rules to go by that other companies didn’t have to adhere to (e.g., 30 notice befre replacement), I’ll bet they could charge lower premiums than regular companies.
Downstate there is a very hard time geting homeonwers insurance. Maybe the State Fund could go into that too.
Hey, contractors are having a really tough time getting GL. Why doesn’t the Fund do that too?
The answer is that the state should not be competing with private enterprise, and certainly not on a playing field where they have advantages that private enterprise can’t get.
All this law seeks to do is to level the playing field. It isn’t interested in forcing the Fund to stop taking overcharges from desperate insureds just so they can cherry pick good ones.
That is actually a good idea Suffolk Co Agent. I will definitely be speaking to my advisors about starting up government run auto, homeowners, and general liability insurance providers. See what happens when you piss and moan about little things? Just kidding, its not going to be your fault. Actually, I’ve had this on my mind since way back in the day before Spitzer even thought about poking hookers.
We don’t do that sort of thing in this country because we are (at least in thoery) a capitalist society. The Soviet Union and the communist bloc countries weren’t. They found that socialism didn’t work.
England and the Scandanavian counrties have all cut back on what the governmant provides.
Hey, if we’re going to go socialist, I’ll be able to stop paying exhorbitant rates on my health insurance. Maybe Dave (Governor Dave) has a good idea there. While we’re at it, maybe the government will be able to do something about our high fuel taxes (oops, they’re more than twice as high in the socialist countries; sorry). Oh well.
Why was my post deleted? This is serious business here folks. These brokers are talking a lot of trash and the State of NY isnt gonna stand for it. This Suffolk guy thinks hes all hard cuz he lived in Brooklyn until he was 4 and then his parents moved out to East Islip. If you came up to me on the street talking this jive I would straight slap you upside your pimply head.
so based on all of the comments it seems clear that the passage of this bill will hurt NY business. The bill should be repealed before more business leaves the state.
I wouldn’t agree with that assessment. I don’t think that all of this debate indicates that at all. Some here have said that the current way the State Fund does business hurts some businesses, while it helps others.
What the bill is asking is to put the state (who really ought not to be competiting with private enterprise anyway) on equal footing with private enterprise, with whom it is competing.
well, if the bill passes the State Fund would most likely be forced to increase the assessment charge to that of the other carriers so all business’ in the State Fund will be forced to pay higher premiums. This helps nobody, excpet of course the agents, who are only concerned with making the extra dollar. The agents should do what is in the best iterest of the client. It is obvious this downstate broker does not utilize the State Fund for its clients, even though it could save them money… HMMMM.
I totally changed my mind. I woke up this morning and I realized that everything that I was saying was utter nonsense. I now acknowledge the fact that The State Fund is the best and I think this movement to change the rules for them should be ignored.
this entire thread is played out like the jheri curl. all these long island brokers need to quit their whining, go back to their suburban split-level, have sex with their wife for once instead of spanking it after a visit to the strip club, and quit worrying about a few measley dollars earned by a commision. theres plenty of different kinds of insurance you guys can be hawking, dont fixate yourselves on workers comp. with global warming, you long islanders might want to look into some serious flood insurance, after all, you ARE living on a pile of glacial debris thats like what, 4 feet about sea level? you can even use that line on customers if you want. ill allow it. buncha tossers.
I’ve been sitting back here watching this whole menagerie unfold and I feel compelled to cooment here. Those against this bill seem to write emotionally with very few facts. They tend to denigrate those who aer for it. Sounds like dirty policital tricks here.
From what the “pros” are saying, they only want the NY State Ins Fund to have to abide by teh same rules as other insurance companies. Is that about right?
And the “cons” seem to want the Fund to have these unfair advantages. Is THAT right?
If so, I don’t know what all the quibbling is about. Why not just n\make teh State follow the same rules it makes the other companies have to follow?
because by doing that business in NYS that has their workers compensation in the State Fund will see their premiums increase. They will force the State Fund to increase their assessment charge. How will this be better for the employer?????? It won’t. It will only be better for the carriers in NYS who are looking to make a profit.
Why does the state compete with private industry anyway? Why doesn’t the state sell gas to me at $2.50 a gallon and make up th4e difference by selling it to you at $6.00 a gallon? That’s what the SIF does.
And if they did sell gas at $2.50 per gallon you would buy it and be quite upset if they were forced to increase the price. That is exactly what is happening here. Hmmmmmmmm.
exactly. everyone can be insured by the state insurance fund if they want and benefit from its better prices. i mean seriously, id be just as willing to wipe my butt with some no-frills toilet paper as i would with some uber expensive quilted charmin that winds up just causing a huge dingleberry problem in the longrun.
Not true. I have seen cases where the SIF surcharged the hell out of a risk because they can. They do it on risks no one else will write, only because they can get away with it. The SIF is often a reverse Robin Hood – stealing from the desperate to give to the well heeled. Regular companies can’t do that.
There is a reason no one else will write that risk. Perhaps they are not a good risk. At least there is a place to go for the sub par risk that the private insurers do not want & will not write. These types of risks, in most cases, deserve to be surcharged. No different then the automobile assigned risk plan.
Should the assigned risk have the ability to charge different rates for different risks based on whim? Should it be allowed to have a competitive advantage over all the other auto insurance companies, supported by tax payers? Should it be allowed to have its own cancellation rules that no one else in the industry has to abide by?
No one is saying that the SIF should not be be allowed to charge what they feel like, unfair as that may be, but how about making them: 1) Be answerable to the insurance department like ALL other companies in NY state); and 2) Have to go by the same rules (re: cancellations, etc.) that ALL the other comapnies in NY state have to abide by?
did you guys hear that theres a new radio station completely owned and run by women? every month there will be 3 weeks of the blues and one week of ragtime.
This is just another long island broker more concerned with not receiving any $$$$ for placing coverage with the State Fund. You will make plenty of $$$ on all other lines. By changing the rules as they are now will only cause workers compensation premiums to increase. That would be wonderful for the business community, don’t you think?
And let’s not forget that they pay no commission to agents even though we service the accounts…
Yes, a level playing field will be welcomed. They lowered NY assessments to suit themselves, can offer any discount they feel necessary, can surcharge any account they feel necessary, and if a 30 Reservation of Rights is recvd by them, they will solicit insured direct offering discounts! Yes, this will be welcomed by all in NY. About time.
Good luck getting this passed as Government plans are unable to compete when there is a level playing field.
You really think this will be welcomed by all in NY. How about all the NY business’s that will have to pay higher comp bills because of this. At least Tracy is honest. This is all about the Fund not paying commissions and brokers being greedy.
Sorry John, it is not all about commissions. It is about the unfair advantages that the State Fund has given itself. Lower assessments, no commission payout and no need to follow the same rules and have to pay into the Trust fund on losses. They can adjust the policy debits up at will.
Yes, it would be nice to receive even a 1% commission on policies we write through them, but what we want is to allow fair competition with the standard markets for the insureds to have a choice.
The advantages are not unfair. If you have a bad risk, you can just drop it. NYSIF cannot drop anyone so it has to be able to raise the price on it’s “bad” risks. As far as the assessment, you seem to be arguing that NYSIF should not give it’s “good” risks the cheapest price possible. The comp law requires that NYSIF premiums be fixed at the lowest possible rates consistent with a solvent fund. This does not seem like a bad thing to me.
I am going to have to agree with John here. The guy obviously knows what hes talking about. The State Fund by law MUST insure anyone that applies for a policy. It doesnt have the luxury of dropping bad risks or turning away high risk industries. How many private carriers are willing to take on contracting risks? Not many. 9/11? Lets see how many private carriers are down when they start building on the Trade Center site. This is a commission issue, so take this nonsense to the private carriers and tell THEM they need to change THEIR routine to compete. Lets try to remember that NYSIF and the whole workers comp law system was created to help workers, not to fill anyones wallet.
The market of last resort argument does not justify the government participating in predatory market practices by creating a highly subsidized competitive insurer. As a government agency, the Fund does not pay any taxes — i.e., it is keeping 35% more of its profits than private insurers and using it to lower prices on the best risks in the state. There is no other way to say it: This is unfair competition.
So the bottom line is that you want companies that are barely making it now to have to pay higher comp bills so you can make more money.
I just got back from the year 2015 and this whole movement turns out to be an epic failure. Not only that, but by late 2012 people realize that if they are competent enough to run their own business, they are also competent enough to be able to fill out their own Workers Comp Applications. This essentially makes insurance brokers obsolete. Fortunately, rollerskating makes a huge comeback and many out of work brokers find employment in newly built roller-rinks as concession stand workers.
I agree with John. The State Fund is able to lower premiums for business in NYS. This should be looked on as a positive. The broker should not be concerned about being paid for the workers compensation. If they are they can charge a service fee. When they are writing the complete account(GL, auto, umbrella etc) they are receiving income from all other lines of business. Isn’t it good for New York to pay lower workers compensation costs? If the way the State Fund operates changes the only one who suffers are the policyholders. This does not seem logical.
I agree with John too. Insurance (doesn’t matter what variety) is always a scam, because when you need it insurance companies will fight tooth and nail not to have to make a payout. This being said, thank god we actually have a company like NYSIF that can help out new business owners in NYS in terms of premium. This nonsense seems to be strictly about brokers and their lack of commission when placing a company with NYSIF. Looks like they might need to just raise their broker fee and leave the politickin’ to the big boys.
That would be great as we will not have to work for nothing anymore.
rick, if your job really isnt paying you enough you should go on monster.com and make a profile.
PWNED!
I’m doing quite well actually, I just dislike servicing the State Workers Comp fund and not getting paid to do it.
So you would rather see business in New York pay more money so you can make an extra buck?
don’t service them then. only broker for companies that want private carriers. be like, “you want state fund? I’m out.”
On a side note, I have had a policy with the state fund since 1987 and i love it. you know the commercial that says “like a good neighbor, state farm is there”? thats nonsense, it should be “like a good neighbor, state FUND is there”. State fund takes care of people. if you go away on vacation for a few days state fund will come over to your house and feed your cat for you. Name one other insurance company that will do that. you cant, cuz there isnt one.
I’m afraid Fred you live a sheltered life. Let me see, you must be a bureaucrat, one that gets paid even while sitting on the comode or at the water cooler. I only get paid if I make a sale and then only if the customer is pleased enough to renew with me. How would you like to work on commission only? If the customer is displeased it’s easy to fire me, but not you! It’s next to impossible to fire a bureaucrat!
Wee Rick, if you place the workers compensation anywhere except the State Fund most likely your customer will not be pleased since he will be paying more then he has too. Sometimes you have to accept the income generated by the balance of the account and do what is in the insureds best interest. You may even be able to retain the business for a longer period of time. I guess as a commission based salesman that is not necessarily your goal.
i have been reading these comments all day long and have decided to put my two cents in. Rick seems to be a whiny little pest who wants to rock the boat. whats the matter rick, dont like to save money? never stole toilet paper from a public restroom when you were in college so you could save up some coin for friday night? never bought regular paper plates instead of them fancy goddamn flowery print ones? look, NYSIF provides a reliable product at a hell of a price, who can blame people for wanting it? so theres no commission on it… too bad, so sad, go tell your granddad.
no sir, im no bureaucrat. ive been fighting the system like a modern day robin hood since you were a sperm. i work hard and i play hard and if you cant grasp the idea that paying less for something is a good thing i obviously cant help you. explain to your bosses that state fund is the product thats being sold, and since there is no commission on it because state fund is trying to keep the prices down (imagine that, a government agency actually trying to keep prices down) maybe they can throw you and all the other little broker people a bone.
What some of you folks seem to be unaware of is the SIF’s nasty practices. For example: if they make a mistake on an audit (not unheard of, believe me) and a broker or an insured calls to bring it to their attention, their attitude often is, “Pay the amount and we’ll adjust it later” (i.e., give us a loan even though we screwed up).
The fact that they can and do over charge some risks and yet give big discounts to others only means that they too are playing Robbing Hood, stealing from the desperate and giving to the more attractive risks, that the SIF ought not to be writing anyway.
Why not make SIF have to answer to the insurance dpeartment?
By the way, I do charge a fee to place and service risks in the Fund, and I still hate them.
At the completion of an audit it is signed by either an accountant or an officer. if there is an issue (i.e. the assured believes the audit is wrong) it should be dealt with then and there. if the assured does not have the proper records at the time of the audit he or she scheduled that is not the fault of the state fund. More often than not brokers and assureds will not pay their bill, then wait until the day the policy cancels for nonpayment of premium to call and not so politely question it instead of getting on the horn and dealing with it earlier.
as for the allegation of overcharging the risks, state fund has the right to compensate for its payouts by raising the differential on companies that have poor loss records. Teams of experts meet and analyze the data to determine these changes. private insurance companies would simply tell these companies to get lost.
and awarding the companies that have a great track record and have been loyal customers? how is this bad?
the state fund answers to the workers comp board, the workers compensation rating board AND the insurance department.
back before 1914 on the job injuries meant you and your family were prolly going to end up homeless, then the law was passed to require insurance, and guess what, NYSIF was there to offer it. all these other upstart insurance companies can cry all they want, but they just cant hold a candle to the original.
I personally have had experience with the fund where it tried to charge a HUGE surcharge on a new risk, merely because they thought they could get away with it. Until I went to a second level supervisor, it was going to stay with that monster surcharge. To me that’s trying to steal from an unfortunate in order to be able to give a lot off for a more attractive risk.
What you say about audits is very nice in theory. I can remember (albeit, a number of years ago) where an error was made by the SIF auditor. It was a decimal point error amounting to a few thousand dollars to the SIF’s benefit. The response we and the insured got was, “Pay the audit premium and then you can dispute it.”
I have also seen, again, in years past, when there were credits from audits and instead of actually returning premiums, they were merely applied to the future. Regualr companies couldn’t get away with that.
I admit that the Fund has an important place in NY, but it has gotten far too independent and needs stronger oversight. I have also had occasion where SIF employees who were extremely difficult to understand due to foreign accents, had attitudes such that they knew they were civil service employees and therefore did not have to be as sensitive as people at companies where their income depended on their companies’ success.
If you look at the IJ article and the text of the bill, you will see that nothing in the bill addresses commission. This bill is about making an insurance provider subject to the same regulatory authority that oversees private insurers. If the State Fund wants to compete on price, great! Just make them submit their rating plans to the NY Insurance Dept. for approval, like the private carriers have to.
And the 30-day cancellation notice requirement is NOT friendly to NY businesses. It actually ties their hands and makes it harder for them to exercise choice in the market. Every other insurer must cancel upon the insured giving advance notice. No other insurer has a 30-day advance notice requirement written into law. It serves no useful insurance buyer protection purpose.
No one wants to deny low-cost insurance to NY employers. We don’t want *no* competition, we want *fair* competition. Yes, brokers want to be paid for their services, but current law allows them to charge service fees for that. Just remember that a broker does more than help an insured fill out the app. The broker is the insured’s advocate when there’s a loss or an audit problem.
This is not about *greedy* brokers, as some posters want to believe. It’s about fair competition, no more, no less.
Well said.
Its only well said if you beleive increased cost to New York business is a good thing
Why do you assume that this will raise costs for NY employers? Why will requiring the NYSIF to answer to the Insurance Dept. and taking away the special 30-day cancellation notice requirement necessarily lead to higher rates? I don’t see the connection.
Well, it seems obvious that premiums within the State Fund would have to increase if they have to start making payments into the aggregate trust fund. In addition, premium would increase if they must charge the higher NYS assessment charge. Currently this benefit is being passed along to policyholders. That would disappear with these changes in the law. It is apparant, the business’ in NY will be the ones to suffer.
You’re blowing smoke and everyone on this board knows it. Private companies submit multiple rate plans (AIG-A, AIG-B, AIG-C, ect) so they can rate the policies as they want. How is this any different from NYSIF’s discount or differential? Will you let NYSIF submit multiple rate plans also? How will this change anything? And if you really do more than fill out the app, what’s the big deal with you giving 30 days notice. If you beat NYSIF’s price, you win. If NYSIF counters with a lower price, it’s because of you that your client is paying less, they love you and are more loyal to you, you still collect on their other insurance, you still win. Changing this system WILL result in higher prices for your clients. If you are really looking out for their interest, you would be against this bill
well said
Hey, the private insurers don’t want to pay into the Aggregate Trust Fund or charge the higher NYS assessment, either. If the NYSIF doesn’t have to do these things, then give the private market the same exemptions. If the private market can’t have those exemptions, then the NYSIF shouldn’t have them. That’s really all we’re asking for.
Thats all nice and well, but its probably not going to happen. You should concentrate your energy on something that you CAN change, like global warming.
What will happen if this goes through is The State Fund will have to pay into the aggregate truut fund and the assessment charge will increase. It will not happen in the reverse. The bottom line outcome will be increased cost to business. Is this the ultimate goal?
As far as the assessment charge goes, I believe that NYSIF is paying the full assessment charge, it’s just not charging it’s insured’s the full assessment. I don’t think anyone’s going to care if the private companies don’t pass this charge on to their customers either. So it seems your only real gripe (except for wanting business’s to pay more so you can make more money) is over the Aggregate Trust Fund. Can I assume you are going to change your bill so it only address’s this concern now?
Again, this is about leveling the playing field. If the private insurers and the NYSIF play by the same rules and the NYSIF ends up being the low-cost/high-value insurer, then tough for the private insurers. That’s not the situation we have right now — a government-sponsored insurer has competitive advantages by law that the private insurers lack. You can say all day that my agenda is to rob NY employers, but that doesn’t make it so. All we want is a fair game. Period.
These posts are a farce. It’s quite apparent by what these people are psoting that they are plants with a vested interest in the State Insurance Fund. Their knowledge of the workers comp system (i.e. aggregate trust fund payments, etc)and their bringing up paying commisssions bears this out. If the State Fund becomes the main or only source of Workers Comp coverage in NY we will loose even more businesses than we already are. If you think governement run entities are a good idea just have an issue and deal with the DMV. Fair and equal competition is good and forces all concerned to work hard to earn business. If the State Fund is such a great experience why are their still quite a few businesses insured elsewhere. At least the IIABNY guy was honest about who he was when he posted
Everyone who posts here is going to have knowledge of the workers comp system. They wouldn’t have even read the article if they didn’t. I for one, am not a “plant” and I never claimed not to have a vested interest in NYSIF (that should be apparent if you’ve read my posts). NYSIF is not trying to become the sole source of WC. When have you last seen a NYSIF commercial? Most people are under the misconception that NYSIF was created as the “carrier of last resort”. This is not true. NYSIF was created to be a competitive force in the marketplace to keep the prices of this mandatory insurance as low as possible. Private Insurance companies goals are to set prices as high as they can to maximize shareholder profits. This isn’t wrong. It’s what all private for-profit companies do. The lawmakers simply didn’t want this rule applied to WC. NYSIF, by law, sets it’s prices at the lowest possible rates consistent with the maintenance of a solvent fund. Now private companies must either beat NYSIF’s price or let NYSIF write it. Either way NYSIF lowered the price for the insured. What this bill will do is limit NYSIF’s stabalizing role in the WC market. In other words, this will let the for-profit insurance co’s do what they are supposed to do, maximize profits. Higher prices for NYS business’s for a MANDATORY insurance that they cannot opt out of. Based on all the insurance company scandals of the last few years, I think the only result of this bill will be much higher premiums for the average NY business.
I think John has fairly settled the matter. SIF was created when no one else wrote WC (it is not a late entreant designed to spoil commissions). Most of the policies are pathetically small and require lots of hand holding.
Private companies are free to let new businesses establish a loss run record with SIF and then cherry pick ’em.
SIF is government and by definition and enabling lesgislation is can not make a profit. It is obligated to return any surplus to policyholders as a dividend or a discount.
Private carriers, by the way, only pay taxes on profits and they get to premium dollars in tax exempt bonds.
Perhaps the commission guys should surf less and get out and make calls. Press the flesh. You ain’t seeing while you read this!
You imply that private insurance companies set rates but I believe the rates in New York have been set by the Work Comp Board. That is actually the problem this bill seeks to correct. The State Fund has the ability to apply discounts and lower assessments than the private carriers so they can pick and choose who they want to write and they can then charge premiums lower than the carriers thus eliminating private carriers from being competitive if they wanted to. Why is the State Fund so afraid to provide a level playing field for writing Workers’ Comp? Why do they not want to fall under the jurisdiction of the New York Insurance Department, an agency tasked with the protection of consumers and the responsibility to make carriers that write coverage in New York comply with the rules and regulations. That is all this bill seeks to do.
I never heard of this workers’ compensation thingy before. You mean I am supposed to have some sort of special insurance for my workers (I own a factory in Liverpool, NY and have 5000 employees).
Does anyone know how I can get in touch with the NYSIF to talk about how to get this special insurance because the NYSIF sounds like a really really great company and, according to everone on this board, has the lowest prices.
I hope I don’t get into any trouble for not having this special type of insurance thingy!
You obviously don’t understand how comp works. The rates are set by the Rating Board (not the comp board). Insurance co’s then submit their rate deviation (How much lower they are going to charge all their insured’s). They get around this by forming multiple companies For example: aig-a, aig-b, aig-c, ect. aig-a will give everyone a 30% discount, aig-b will give everyone a 25% discount, ect. This way they can “set” the price according to risk of their insured by which of their companies they place the risk in. NYSIF does the same thing but without the multiple companies.
It’s exactly the same!!!!!!
The only difference is they don’t have companies set up with surcharges because they simply don’t write those risks. And what makes you think NYSIF is not under the jurisdiction of the New York Insurance Department. They currently send NYSIF many inquiry’s and NYSIF MUST answer them. Again, the only thing this bill will do is raise the cost of doing business in NYS. This is not fair to do to an insurance that is mandatory and which they cannot opt out of.
Well that doesn’t seem fair! Forming multiple companies so that they can do the same thing as the NYSIF does!
That’s it, I’m going to the NYSIF with my 10,000 employees. The heck with the private companies!
The bottom line is if the law gets changed to “level the playing field” the private insurance companies win (more profit) and the businessowners in New York State lose. Seems logical.
wow, is this for real? so many colorful and interesting characters arguing over something that in all likely hood won’t change. I think this thread made it into the “most discussed” list for cryin’ out loud. All i have to say is, if this passes and they actually change the laws, the people responsible for the change need to promise to move on to bigger and better problems and actually help people out. such a sad state of affairs when money is the only thing that gets people interested in change. how about a less clichéd catalyst for once?
How would it be in the State Fund were to write personal auto? There was a time when getting personal auto in NY was quite difficult (as it once was for WC), and perhaps the Fund would make personal auto companies have to try harder to compete. If the Fund also had its own set of rules to go by that other companies didn’t have to adhere to (e.g., 30 notice befre replacement), I’ll bet they could charge lower premiums than regular companies.
Downstate there is a very hard time geting homeonwers insurance. Maybe the State Fund could go into that too.
Hey, contractors are having a really tough time getting GL. Why doesn’t the Fund do that too?
The answer is that the state should not be competing with private enterprise, and certainly not on a playing field where they have advantages that private enterprise can’t get.
All this law seeks to do is to level the playing field. It isn’t interested in forcing the Fund to stop taking overcharges from desperate insureds just so they can cherry pick good ones.
That is actually a good idea Suffolk Co Agent. I will definitely be speaking to my advisors about starting up government run auto, homeowners, and general liability insurance providers. See what happens when you piss and moan about little things? Just kidding, its not going to be your fault. Actually, I’ve had this on my mind since way back in the day before Spitzer even thought about poking hookers.
We don’t do that sort of thing in this country because we are (at least in thoery) a capitalist society. The Soviet Union and the communist bloc countries weren’t. They found that socialism didn’t work.
England and the Scandanavian counrties have all cut back on what the governmant provides.
Hey, if we’re going to go socialist, I’ll be able to stop paying exhorbitant rates on my health insurance. Maybe Dave (Governor Dave) has a good idea there. While we’re at it, maybe the government will be able to do something about our high fuel taxes (oops, they’re more than twice as high in the socialist countries; sorry). Oh well.
Cute, but don’t quit your day job just yet.
Why was my post deleted? This is serious business here folks. These brokers are talking a lot of trash and the State of NY isnt gonna stand for it. This Suffolk guy thinks hes all hard cuz he lived in Brooklyn until he was 4 and then his parents moved out to East Islip. If you came up to me on the street talking this jive I would straight slap you upside your pimply head.
so based on all of the comments it seems clear that the passage of this bill will hurt NY business. The bill should be repealed before more business leaves the state.
I wouldn’t agree with that assessment. I don’t think that all of this debate indicates that at all. Some here have said that the current way the State Fund does business hurts some businesses, while it helps others.
What the bill is asking is to put the state (who really ought not to be competiting with private enterprise anyway) on equal footing with private enterprise, with whom it is competing.
well, if the bill passes the State Fund would most likely be forced to increase the assessment charge to that of the other carriers so all business’ in the State Fund will be forced to pay higher premiums. This helps nobody, excpet of course the agents, who are only concerned with making the extra dollar. The agents should do what is in the best iterest of the client. It is obvious this downstate broker does not utilize the State Fund for its clients, even though it could save them money… HMMMM.
I totally changed my mind. I woke up this morning and I realized that everything that I was saying was utter nonsense. I now acknowledge the fact that The State Fund is the best and I think this movement to change the rules for them should be ignored.
finally someone with some sense!!!!!!!!
this entire thread is played out like the jheri curl. all these long island brokers need to quit their whining, go back to their suburban split-level, have sex with their wife for once instead of spanking it after a visit to the strip club, and quit worrying about a few measley dollars earned by a commision. theres plenty of different kinds of insurance you guys can be hawking, dont fixate yourselves on workers comp. with global warming, you long islanders might want to look into some serious flood insurance, after all, you ARE living on a pile of glacial debris thats like what, 4 feet about sea level? you can even use that line on customers if you want. ill allow it. buncha tossers.
I’ve been sitting back here watching this whole menagerie unfold and I feel compelled to cooment here. Those against this bill seem to write emotionally with very few facts. They tend to denigrate those who aer for it. Sounds like dirty policital tricks here.
From what the “pros” are saying, they only want the NY State Ins Fund to have to abide by teh same rules as other insurance companies. Is that about right?
And the “cons” seem to want the Fund to have these unfair advantages. Is THAT right?
If so, I don’t know what all the quibbling is about. Why not just n\make teh State follow the same rules it makes the other companies have to follow?
because by doing that business in NYS that has their workers compensation in the State Fund will see their premiums increase. They will force the State Fund to increase their assessment charge. How will this be better for the employer?????? It won’t. It will only be better for the carriers in NYS who are looking to make a profit.
Why does the state compete with private industry anyway? Why doesn’t the state sell gas to me at $2.50 a gallon and make up th4e difference by selling it to you at $6.00 a gallon? That’s what the SIF does.
And if they did sell gas at $2.50 per gallon you would buy it and be quite upset if they were forced to increase the price. That is exactly what is happening here. Hmmmmmmmm.
My point exactly. Why should the state give someone an advantage at the expense of someone else?
The difference is the advantage can be had by all.
exactly. everyone can be insured by the state insurance fund if they want and benefit from its better prices. i mean seriously, id be just as willing to wipe my butt with some no-frills toilet paper as i would with some uber expensive quilted charmin that winds up just causing a huge dingleberry problem in the longrun.
Not true. I have seen cases where the SIF surcharged the hell out of a risk because they can. They do it on risks no one else will write, only because they can get away with it. The SIF is often a reverse Robin Hood – stealing from the desperate to give to the well heeled. Regular companies can’t do that.
CRY MOAR!
There is a reason no one else will write that risk. Perhaps they are not a good risk. At least there is a place to go for the sub par risk that the private insurers do not want & will not write. These types of risks, in most cases, deserve to be surcharged. No different then the automobile assigned risk plan.
Should the assigned risk have the ability to charge different rates for different risks based on whim? Should it be allowed to have a competitive advantage over all the other auto insurance companies, supported by tax payers? Should it be allowed to have its own cancellation rules that no one else in the industry has to abide by?
No one is saying that the SIF should not be be allowed to charge what they feel like, unfair as that may be, but how about making them: 1) Be answerable to the insurance department like ALL other companies in NY state); and 2) Have to go by the same rules (re: cancellations, etc.) that ALL the other comapnies in NY state have to abide by?
did you guys hear that theres a new radio station completely owned and run by women? every month there will be 3 weeks of the blues and one week of ragtime.
ba dum bum ching!
This is just another long island broker more concerned with not receiving any $$$$ for placing coverage with the State Fund. You will make plenty of $$$ on all other lines. By changing the rules as they are now will only cause workers compensation premiums to increase. That would be wonderful for the business community, don’t you think?