Life Health Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Life insurers state their case for prohibition on secondary market

Notify me of new replies via email
Life Health Professional | 25 Oct 2017, 08:15 AM Agree 0
Susan Murray of CLHIA responds to critics of industry's position on Bill 162
  • LISAC | 25 Oct 2017, 04:04 PM Agree 0
    as expected! But we see no factual evidence of Ms Murray's assertions No hard evidence as compared to LISAC submissions and sources.. May I suggest that CLHIA and LISAC meet to discuss? We are available anytime or place of your choosing! In the interim watch for our response.
  • | 25 Oct 2017, 04:14 PM Agree 0
    we note that your initial submission you suggest "the potential market for life settlements in Canada is extremely limited" whereas you now state "you open this up in a big market like Ontario" Which is it?
  • kencade | 25 Oct 2017, 04:18 PM Agree 0
    There is fraud and abuses in all industries, particularly the financial one. That is why there is heavy regulation that constantly evolves to meet the needs of the public. No reason that cannot be the same for the life settlement market and any argument that asserts this reasoning as the basis for not having life settlements in Ontario is foolish.
  • david | 25 Oct 2017, 04:31 PM Agree 0
    It is one thing to oppose something, it is another to be able to construct a clear, evidence-based argument that supports such oppositions. In a democracy, opposition is essential to the betterment of our country and society, but – and it is an important but – that opposition must be able to not only make valid points but factually counter the points put forward by the proponents and supporters of Bill 162. Susan Murray simply continues to repeat the unfounded, anecdotal claims that the CLHIA has proffered for years, while ignoring the factual evidence.
    In their document distributed on Oct. 18th, CLHIA stated that there was a limited market for life settlements and yet in this article Ms. Murray states, "You open this up in a big market like Ontario ..." So which is it, limited or big? And her claim that "You have lots of that in the United States, where there has been all kinds of problems; it’s been a very detrimental market for seniors" is just not factually supported. To the contrary, research from independent, unbiased sources found that The National Association of Insurance Commissioners reported that
    “there are only three consumer complaints” nationwide and “at least two of them don't involve life settlement market players.” If CLHIA wants to be credible and have a well-reasoned debate on Bill 162 they need to ground it in facts.

    Mr. Goodman's invitation to the CLHIA to meet and discuss is an excellent idea – if the intent is to do what's best for Ontario's seniors.
  • david | 25 Oct 2017, 06:56 PM Agree 0
    It is one thing to oppose something, it is another to be able to construct a clear, evidence-based argument that supports such oppositions. In a democracy, opposition is essential to the betterment of our country and society, but – and it is an important but – that opposition must be able to not only make valid points but factually counter the points put forward by the proponents and supporters of Bill 162. Susan Murray simply continues to repeat the unfounded, anecdotal claims that the CLHIA has proffered for years, while ignoring the factual evidence.
    In their document distributed on Oct. 18th, CLHIA stated that there was a limited market for life settlements and yet in this article Ms. Murray states, "You open this up in a big market like Ontario ..." So which is it, limited or big? And her claim that "You have lots of that in the United States, where there has been all kinds of problems; it’s been a very detrimental market for seniors" is just not factually supported. To the contrary, research from independent, unbiased sources found that The National Association of Insurance Commissioners reported that
    “there are only three consumer complaints” nationwide and “at least two of them don't involve life settlement market players.” If CLHIA wants to be credible and have a well-reasoned debate on Bill 162 they need to ground it in facts.

    Mr. Goodman's invitation to the CLHIA to meet and discuss is an excellent idea – if the intent is to do what's best for Ontario's seniors.
  • lisac | 26 Oct 2017, 10:25 AM Agree 0
    Ms Murray has stated that both Sask. and Quebec are considering changes to amend their Insurance regulations to conform to Ontario. What she DOES NOT say is that CLHIA has been lobbying ALL four of the Canadian Provinces heavily to make such changes> One must ask why?
Post a reply