4 ms·

I just made a similar comment before seeing yours. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125679 Clicking "next"

by jmckib 11y ago

I just made a similar comment before seeing yours. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125679 Clicking "next" for 52 hours is clearly absurd, though I would take it farther and argue that no exam should be required to be an insurance broker at all.

CydeWeys 11y ago
> I would take it farther and argue that no exam should be required to be an insurance broker at all. I can see the benefits of requiring competency before being allowed to sell insurance to the public. Insurance is important. It's what you rely on to defray potentially millions of dollars in damages (up to and including the death of yourself or your spouse) when something goes horribly wrong. And it would be a huge travesty if you didn't actually have the coverage you thought you did because the unlicensed, untrained, and inexperienced agent that sold you your policy didn't correctly explain it, or didn't understand your needs.
- harryh 11y ago
  Maybe we should make everyone who buys insurance take a test to show basic competency beforehand.
  - CydeWeys 11y ago
    You're joking, right?
    - harryh 11y ago
      I think you're wrong. I think that all evidence shows us that it's much more effective to educate the consumers of a good/service than to educate the producers. An educated and informed public is the most powerful force there is in guaranteeing a quality product. In all seriousness, I obviously don't think a test should be required to buy insurance, but I do think that government putting a little more effort into educating the populace on financial topics (including insurance) would do much more good than having brokers jump through silly hoops like the one under discussion here.
      - mikk14 11y ago
        The problem arises when you ask yourself the question: "Where does this customer education stops?". Of course it is better to have a public competent in buying insurance, food, housing, financial products, health treatments, etc... But you are requiring to put an amount of knowledge into every head that simply cannot fit. It's much better to train the specialized provider, because then each head has only to fit the knowledge required for their own profession. This is feasible and with much less effort. Slightly worse result, but there's no free lunch.
      - CydeWeys 11y ago
        You cannot realistically expect every person to know the ins and outs of every product. I cannot be an expert on insurance, mortgages, food safety, automobiles, mechanics, etc., and it's ludicrous to say that everyone should be. You know how dumb the median person is? Half the people are dumber than that. So given that it will never happen that everyone is an expert at everything, we need alternate systems to protect people. Like licensing and regulation. All you've got is an impossible pipe dream.
        nommm-nommm 11y ago
        Especially when misinformation is so easy to spread.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- jmckib 11y ago
  Insurance is important, but that doesn't mean a license should be legally required, for a few reasons: 1. Ethically, I think that if you choose to do business with an untrained, inexperienced broker, then the consequences are on you. In fact, there may be legitimate reasons to do so, which brings us to point 2. 2. If the members of a profession control entry into that profession, which is always the case with occupational licensure, then those members have a strong economic incentive to construct barriers to entry. More and more irrelevant requirements will be added over time. Certification protects against this tendency while still providing all of the supposed informational benefits of licensure. If certification requirements become too crazy and irrelevant, the price differential between certified and uncertified professionals will increase, and consumers will start to use uncertified professionals instead, forcing the certification requirements back down to sanity.
  - mcguire 11y ago
    1. How would you know? 2. You know this licensing system did not come out of thin air? Got an example of a working, critical certification system?
    - jmckib 11y ago
      1. I was just stating my opinion. If somebody wants to go to an incompetent insurance broker, or do dangerous drugs, or jump off a cliff, I think that should be their right since those decisions don't significantly affect anyone else. Again, just my opinion on an ethical matter, a reasonable person could disagree. 2. My understanding is that there are few government-mandated certification systems because they tend to gradually evolve towards licensure, due to political pressure from producer groups. There are many private certification systems that work quite well. The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is a private certification system for household products. Stores such as Target certify the value of the products that they sell in order to guard their own reputation. I'm hesitant to mention this because I don't know much about it, but I believe accountants are also certified rather than licensed.
      - nommm-nommm 11y ago
- biot 11y ago
  As long as the insurance agent selling you a policy has adequate insurance to cover any liability that arises due to their lack of training and experience, it's all turtl^H^H^H^H^Hgood.
st3v3r 11y ago
Good thing that's NOT what is required.

by jmckib 11y ago

CydeWeys 11y ago

> I would take it farther and argue that no exam should be required to be an insurance broker at all. I can see the benefits of requiring competency before being allowed to sell insurance to the public. Insurance is important. It's what you rely on to defray potentially millions of dollars in damages (up to and including the death of yourself or your spouse) when something goes horribly wrong. And it would be a huge travesty if you didn't actually have the coverage you thought you did because the unlicensed, untrained, and inexperienced agent that sold you your policy didn't correctly explain it, or didn't understand your needs.

harryh 11y ago
Maybe we should make everyone who buys insurance take a test to show basic competency beforehand.
- CydeWeys 11y ago
  You're joking, right?
  - harryh 11y ago
    I think you're wrong. I think that all evidence shows us that it's much more effective to educate the consumers of a good/service than to educate the producers. An educated and informed public is the most powerful force there is in guaranteeing a quality product. In all seriousness, I obviously don't think a test should be required to buy insurance, but I do think that government putting a little more effort into educating the populace on financial topics (including insurance) would do much more good than having brokers jump through silly hoops like the one under discussion here.
    - mikk14 11y ago
      The problem arises when you ask yourself the question: "Where does this customer education stops?". Of course it is better to have a public competent in buying insurance, food, housing, financial products, health treatments, etc... But you are requiring to put an amount of knowledge into every head that simply cannot fit. It's much better to train the specialized provider, because then each head has only to fit the knowledge required for their own profession. This is feasible and with much less effort. Slightly worse result, but there's no free lunch.
    - CydeWeys 11y ago
      You cannot realistically expect every person to know the ins and outs of every product. I cannot be an expert on insurance, mortgages, food safety, automobiles, mechanics, etc., and it's ludicrous to say that everyone should be. You know how dumb the median person is? Half the people are dumber than that. So given that it will never happen that everyone is an expert at everything, we need alternate systems to protect people. Like licensing and regulation. All you've got is an impossible pipe dream.
      - nommm-nommm 11y ago
        Especially when misinformation is so easy to spread.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
jmckib 11y ago
Insurance is important, but that doesn't mean a license should be legally required, for a few reasons: 1. Ethically, I think that if you choose to do business with an untrained, inexperienced broker, then the consequences are on you. In fact, there may be legitimate reasons to do so, which brings us to point 2. 2. If the members of a profession control entry into that profession, which is always the case with occupational licensure, then those members have a strong economic incentive to construct barriers to entry. More and more irrelevant requirements will be added over time. Certification protects against this tendency while still providing all of the supposed informational benefits of licensure. If certification requirements become too crazy and irrelevant, the price differential between certified and uncertified professionals will increase, and consumers will start to use uncertified professionals instead, forcing the certification requirements back down to sanity.
- mcguire 11y ago
  1. How would you know? 2. You know this licensing system did not come out of thin air? Got an example of a working, critical certification system?
  - jmckib 11y ago
    1. I was just stating my opinion. If somebody wants to go to an incompetent insurance broker, or do dangerous drugs, or jump off a cliff, I think that should be their right since those decisions don't significantly affect anyone else. Again, just my opinion on an ethical matter, a reasonable person could disagree. 2. My understanding is that there are few government-mandated certification systems because they tend to gradually evolve towards licensure, due to political pressure from producer groups. There are many private certification systems that work quite well. The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is a private certification system for household products. Stores such as Target certify the value of the products that they sell in order to guard their own reputation. I'm hesitant to mention this because I don't know much about it, but I believe accountants are also certified rather than licensed.
    - nommm-nommm 11y ago
biot 11y ago
As long as the insurance agent selling you a policy has adequate insurance to cover any liability that arises due to their lack of training and experience, it's all turtl^H^H^H^H^Hgood.

st3v3r 11y ago

Good thing that's NOT what is required.