Saying good buy to an old friend

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE STATEMENT FROM NAIC PRESIDENT SUSAN E. VOSSNAIC Remembers Former Virginia Insurance Commissioner Alfred Gross "We are saddened to learn of the passing of our dear friend and former colleague, Al Gross. In his fourteen years as commissioner of the Virginia Bureau of Insurance before retiring last fall, Al was an invaluable asset to the NAIC and a mentor to many fellow regulators. He was a leader in financial regulation and highly regarded internationally for his contributions. State-based regulation is better because of him. While he was lauded for his tremendous regulatory expertise, Al was equally appreciated for his service and friendship. On behalf of the NAIC, we extend our deepest sympathies to his family."

About the NAIC Formed in 1871, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) is a voluntary organization of the chief insurance regulatory officials of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and five U.S. territories. The NAIC has three offices: Executive Office, Washington, D.C.; Central Office, Kansas City, Mo.; and Securities Valuation Office, New York City. The NAIC serves the needs of consumers and the industry, with an overriding objective of supporting state insurance regulators as they protect consumers and maintain the financial stability of the insurance marketplace. For more information, visit www.naic.org.

From: CongressmanForbes@housemail.house.gov

Please Write your rep to get our great country back on track. I did and here is his reply:
 

Dear Mrs. Neser:

Thank you for contacting me to express your frustration with the progress of budget talks and the pace at which our federal government is addressing our serious financial challenges. We have a serious national challenge before us, and people want to hear ideas and solutions from their federal representatives, not partisan politics. I believe that we need to return to the foundations and principles upon which this country was founded. We also must follow a very fundamental principle of accounting: We cannot spend more than we bring in. No nation, business, or individual can long escape the pain of spending more than it makes.  While today we feel the pain of past decisions, let us have the resolve to protect our nation's future from the deception that comes with the belief that the principles of economic reason apply to everyone but ourselves.

The increasingly rapid rise of government spending, and severity of our public debt situation has brought our nation to this "boiling point" of debate over how best to move forward. The federal debt held by the public as a share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was 40.3% in 2008, 53.5% in 2009, and 62.2% in 2010. For this fiscal year, it is estimated at 72%. I believe that everyone can agree that we cannot sustain this path and must address our policies going forward.

I also believe that we can all agree the debt ceiling needs to be raised and that we cannot default. While there are different numbers being offered for "cuts" in spending, we cannot immediately cut enough money to stay under the current debt limit. Additionally, we must do all that we can to prevent the United States from losing our triple-A bond rating. One smaller ratings company has already downgraded the U.S. sovereign debt from triple-A to double-A, stating the lack of spending control as the essential challenge to our economy in the future.

While no plan may be perfect, the Cut, Cap and Balance Act (H.R. 2560), is the only plan that has been brought forward for a vote as of this date. This legislation makes immediate spending cuts, sets enforceable spending caps, and requires passage of a balanced budget amendment in order to raise the debt limit. The Cut, Cap and Balance Act is a constitutional solution to put an end to the spending-driven debt crisis and save our children and grandchildren from a bankrupt future.

On July 19, H.R. 2560 passed in the House with my support by a vote of 234 – 190. However, on July 22, 2011, the motion to proceed to consider the measure failed in Senate by a vote of 46-51.

Below are just five important items from the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act as passed by the House:

• Make necessary cuts and reforms to get the debt under control. Cut, Cap, and Balance cuts total spending by $111 billion in FY 2012, reducing non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels.  Enforceable caps on spending will bring the size of government back below 20% of GDP to its average level over the last 30 years.

• Ensure the debt limit isn't raised without a credible plan for addressing our debt problem. Raising the debt limit without a credible plan to balance the budget ignores the real spending problem and will make our debt problems even worse.

• Protect seniors and our veterans. While addressing wasteful spending, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act makes absolutely no changes to Social Security, Medicare, or veterans spending.

• Encourage tax reform rather than higher taxes to address our national debt. This year, the Federal government will spend twice as much as it spent just ten years ago, and more than 40% of it is borrowed money. While we do need to reform our tax code to make it fairer and simpler, the reality is we have too much debt because Washington spends too much, not because it taxes too little.

• Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.  It provides that the President can request a debt ceiling increase only if a qualifying Balanced Budget Amendment passes Congress and is sent to the states for ratification.

While the Senate failed to act on this important legislation, they have yet to put forward their own plan for a vote. While the President has talked about a plan he would like to see enacted, the White House has not as yet put forward an actual plan. The House Republicans are expected to bring a new plan to the floor for a vote as early as Thursday.

I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to chart a course towards a nation not burdened with the crushing weight of its national debt. For each and any plan that comes before me for a vote, please be assured that I will give each of them serious consideration and cast my vote for what I believe is in the best interest of the country.

Thank you again for being a part of the debate about how we meet this challenge before us and how we build a stronger, smarter, more efficient America. Please visit my website, www.forbes.house.gov to learn about the work I am doing to address our Federal budget issues and to join this important discussion. With kind personal regards, I am

Yours truly,

J. RANDY FORBES

Member of Congress

Why your accounts are vulnerable to thieves-From Consumers reports

House of cards

Why your accounts are vulnerable to thieves

Last reviewed: June 2011

This article appeared in
June 2011 Consumer Reports Magazine.

Videos

Photos

VIDEO:

Thieves target bank cards

 

Videos

Photos

 

The bank customer was getting suspicious while trying to withdraw cash from a drive-up bank ATM in New Port Richey, Fla., last year. The blinking LED lights around the card slot were flashing faster than usual, and the slot seemed oddly slow to take his card, he told sheriff’s department officers.

Then he reached out and jiggled the card slot. It came off right in his hand. He notified the bank, and police started their investigation.

They discovered that a fake card reader, or skimmer, had been placed over the real card-entry slot and that a pinhole camera had been recording customers entering their personal identification numbers. “We have the bank surveillance tape showing the suspect installing the skimming equipment,” Sgt. Jeffrey Peake of the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office says, but the suspect couldn’t be identified.

The customer avoided becoming a fraud victim, but other Americans have not been as lucky. In the U.S., 32 percent of consumers reported card fraud in the past five years, according to a 2010 survey released earlier this year by ACI Worldwide, which supplies payment systems to financial institutions, processors, and retailers. That was up from 27 percent in 2009.

That number is likely to grow because the credit and debit cards most Americans use are surprisingly vulnerable to fraud, relying on decades-old technology that makes them more susceptible to being skimmed and counterfeited.

Even some contactless credit cards, which use radio frequency identification (RFID) chips that allow you to make purchases without having to swipe your card through a card reader, are vulnerable to virtual skimming, Consumer Reports found in its investigation. We witnessed how they can transmit data such as your card’s account number, expiration date, and security data that thieves could intercept and use to make counterfeit cards.

American credit- and debit-card data are usually stored unencrypted on a magnetic stripe on the back of each card, which thieves can easily and cheaply copy. The U.S. and some nonindustrialized countries in Africa are among the only nations still relying on magstripe payment cards, which came into wide use in the 1970s. China has announced that it will no longer produce or accept such cards after 2015; American travelers are already finding that their cards aren’t accepted at some gas stations, parking facilities, subways, and merchants in Europe. The European Central Bank has recommended that banks stop issuing magstripe cards after 2012.

Most other countries are shifting to what are known as EMV “smart cards” (the acronym comes from Europay MasterCard Visa). Smart cards use multiple layers of security, starting with a computer chip in each card that stores and transmits encrypted data and a unique identifier that can change with each transaction.

In some cases, cardholders also enter a PIN to authorize credit as well as debit transactions. Total fraud losses dropped by 50 percent, and card counterfeiting fell by 78 percent in the first year after EMV smart cards were introduced in France in 1992. Other countries that have switched have also seen card fraud decline.

So why is the U.S. so far behind? It seems to come down to money. The losses for banks do not yet exceed the costs of a switch-over, although merchants say that’s because they usually shoulder much of the cost burden from fraud.

Most cards limit liability for consumers, but the disruption in time and loss of privacy can be considerable.

“We’re falling behind the rest of the world in fraud protection, and I’m afraid American consumers are getting the short end of the stick,” says Richard Oliver, executive vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and director of the Fed’s Retail Payments Risk Forum, a group that focuses on better ways to detect and reduce fraud.

Skimming is big business

Fraud patrol
Sgt. Jeffrey Peake of the Pasco County, Fla., Sheriff’s Office shows officers how a card-skimming device can steal bank-account information from customers using an ATM.
Photograph by Jay Carlson

The theft of card data in the U.S. is increasingly carried out by organized groups of thieves from other countries. In Eastern Europe particularly, thriving black-market forums exist online to buy and sell skimming equipment and stolen credit- and debit-card information.

“Losses are comfortably in the multimillion- dollar range each year but are incredibly hard to authenticate because of the discreet position that most financial institutions take when asked to assess a loss figure,” says John Buzzard, an executive at FICO, the credit-scoring company. Banking-industry data indicate that debit-card skimming in particular is rising as criminals focus on obtaining debit-card data complete with PINs to get their hands on cash more quickly. “The figures reported by some U.S. banks show losses from fraudulent debit-card transactions using PINs have quintupled at stores in the past five years, and they’ve also risen sharply at ATMs, so it’s clear crooks are succeeding in getting people’s PINs, most likely through a combination of skimming and recording PINs,” says Avivah Litan, a Gartner Research analyst specializing in fraud detection and prevention.

Gas pumps are a popular target for skimmers, especially during vacation season, when more Americans are on the road. Skimmers can be inserted inside a pump without any telltale signs. Last summer, skimming attacks at gas stations in one northern Florida county surged so much that local law-enforcement officials suggested consumers use only cash to pay for gas, according to reports provided to BankInfoSecurity.com, an industry publication.

Crooks are increasingly targeting bank branch ATMs, sometimes installing skimmers in devices near the doors where customers swipe their cards to gain access. Shelby Shearer, a police detective in Bellevue, Wash., says that ATM skimming there has exploded recently, causing more than $300,000 in losses in Seattle’s eastern suburbs in the past eight months.

To obtain the PINs, thieves might attach a keypad overlay that captures your number as you type it in, but more often they’ll install a pinhole video camera aimed at the keypad to record what you’re typing, says Kenneth Jenkins, special agent in charge of the Secret Service’s criminal investigations division. He says a recent probe of an Eastern European skimming group brought arrests of 175 people involved in skimming at ATMs in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, with $25 million in losses.

Criminals can quickly use the skimmed data to create a counterfeit card to withdraw the maximum allowed from each cardholder’s account at an ATM. Card issuers generally extend zero-liability protection to consumers for fraudulent use of credit and debit cards. But victims of debit-card skimming can still face financial hardships because they are without the cash while the bank investigates, which sometimes takes weeks, says Inspector Gregory Antonsen, commanding officer of the New York City Police Department’s Financial Crimes Task Force.

And the scams can have multiple victims. In December 2010, in Butte, Mont., at least 300 fraud victims reported unauthorized charges made on their cards, most of which were debit cards. Among the victims was a local sheriff. For six to eight months at an unsuspecting retailer, a cash register skimmed data from everyone whose card was swiped. Authorities say the data were sold to other criminals to make counterfeit cards used throughout the U.S. Fraudulent charges on the Butte victims’ cards ranged from $500 to $1,500.

“We’ve recommended to several of the large financial institutions that the biggest deterrent to skimming would be using the kind of cards that are issued in Europe and Canada with a chip that makes them pretty much impossible to skim, but so far they seem unwilling to do that,” says Antonsen at the NYPD.

Americans still receive magstripe cards because banks and other financial players in the card industry claim that losses due to fraud in the U.S. have not been high enough to justify the costs involved in switching to EMV smart-chip technology.

Replacing all payment cards in the U.S. could require issuers to spend as much as $2.85 billion, plus $310 million more to update ATMs to accept the new cards, according to a recent report issued by George Peabody, principal analyst at Mercator Advisory Group, consultants to the banking and payments industries. For merchants, he estimates that replacing sales terminals could cost up to $2.64 billion. But many of the nation’s big-name retailers, including Kroger, McDonalds, Sears, and Walgreens, are pushing for an upgrade to the likes of EMV. And a few, such as Best Buy, Home Depot, and Wal-Mart, are in the process of deploying terminals that can read contact and, in some cases, contactless chip and pin technology, Oliver says.

The Mercator report estimates U.S. card issuers’ total losses from credit- and debit-card fraud at $2.4 billion. That figure does not include losses that are borne by merchants, which probably run into tens of billions of dollars a year.

Merchants usually have to absorb losses for fraudulent transactions conducted by mail, phone, and online, and card issuers generally are supposed to take the financial hit for fraudulent transactions conducted in walk-in stores. But retailers report that banks also often charge those losses back to them.

Despite magstripe cards’ vulnerabilities, card issuers say they have developed effective methods to fight fraud. “We use sophisticated systems to monitor and detect fraudulent activity and employ over 1,000 people dedicated to protecting our customers against fraud,” says Paul Hartwick, a spokesman for Chase Card Services. Visa says it relies on an advanced system that detects fraud in real time.

A turning tide?

When the Federal Reserve Board analyzed fraudulent debit-card transactions that occurred in 2009, it found that merchants absorbed 43 percent of all losses reported by debit-card issuers. For credit-card losses, merchants end up eating more than half of losses from fraudulent transactions, says Doug Kantor, counsel to the Merchant Payments Coalition, a trade group representing restaurants, grocers, gas stations, convenience stores, and other retailers.

“If card issuers can make merchants absorb half of their losses on top of paying them interchange fees for each transaction to supposedly help cover fraud-related costs,” Kantor says, “why should they worry about making investments in new technology to better protect against fraud?”

But the tide might be turning. The Smart Card Alliance, an industry trade group, has issued a report on EMV, developed with the support of players including American Express, Capital One, and Chase Card Services. The report notes that “although the enormous size of the U.S. payment industry makes widespread change costly and difficult, the true cost of fraud is increasing and threatens to damage the industry’s reputation.” It says that damage “could accelerate as criminals move to the U.S. as the weakest link.”

Adopting the smart-chip standard also could provide a more secure basis for mobile payments using smart phones, which analysts expect will rapidly replace plastic cards as a form of payment. And it has been suggested that a federal mandate might be the stick required for a switch.

A carrot to entice banks and credit unions away from magstripe debit cards already exists. It’s in the hotly debated rules the Federal Reserve proposed in December 2010 to limit fees that merchants pay card issuers for debit-card transactions, Mercator analyst Peabody says.

Fiercely fought by banks, the new rules would cut the fees from a current average of 44 cents per transaction to a maximum of 12 cents. But card-reform legislation also gives the Federal Reserve an option to allow higher fees for card issuers that adopt more rigorous antifraud technology standards as set by the Fed.

No form of security technology is foolproof, of course. Researchers at the University of Cambridge in February 2010 uncovered a vulnerability in EMV smart cards that could allow a criminal armed with certain electronic equipment to make a purchase using a stolen smart card without having the correct PIN, though Gartner’s Litan says that attack method would be relatively easy to guard against.

But exposing such potential flaws and correcting them is an important part of ensuring that any security system used to safeguard consumers’ financial data is continually evolving to stay ahead of the latest schemes crooks devise to break it.

“We can’t be working eight-hour days on this when the bad guys are working 24/7,” Oliver at the Federal Reserve says.

From: Consumers reports-Beware of these scams

Beware of these scams

10 common tricks and what to do about them

Last reviewed: February 2011

Whether it's fake checks, bogus products and services, or identity theft, it seems as if there's always someone out there trying to make suckers out of us. In the first six months of 2010, scams reported to the fraud center at the National Consumers League cost victims an average of $810.

It's not always easy to spot a scam, even for savvy consumers. That's why you should always be vigilant and take general precautions. Here are some common schemes.

Merchandise fraud

Say you find a really great deal on a digital camera at an online retailer. But shortly after placing your order, you get a phone call from a company representative trying to sell you extra lenses, a fancy case, and other pricey add-ons. You refuse the high-pressure sales pitch, and later you're notified that the camera is no longer in stock. Or it never arrives.

Nonexistent or misrepresented merchandise on the Internet was the fraud center's top complaint in the first half of 2010, with an average loss of $931. That doesn't include fraud involving online auctions, which ranked eighth.

What to do

Check out sellers you're unfamiliar with before buying anything from them. To start, find out whether a company has a report and rating with the Better Business Bureau (http://www.bbb.org/).

If you're victimized after paying with cash or by check, you could be out of luck. So use a credit card, especially when buying online or over the phone. If the order doesn't arrive, you can challenge the purchase under federal credit-card rules. Debit-card purchases offer less protection, although some banks voluntarily provide additional safeguards.

Incidentally, to reduce the risk of unauthorized charges, you might want to consider using a temporary "virtual" or "online" credit-card number, if your bank offers one, for purchases on the Web. In most cases you can request one on the issuer's website. Citibank offers virtual-card software you can install on your computer. You can limit the time the virtual number is active and the maximum amount that can be charged.

Fake checks

These schemes come under many guises. Bogus checks can be used to pay for something you're selling, such as a used car. Or someone might contact you about a "work at home" opportunity or sweepstakes that you supposedly won. He or she might use a fake check to pay you, with instructions to deposit it and then wire a portion of the proceeds to another party, perhaps to pay "required" fees or taxes. In many cases, these scams involve what appear to be certified or bank checks—but that's no guarantee that they're legitimate. If you deposit or cash a phony check at your bank, it will bounce and your bank will come after you to settle up.

Fake check fraud was the National Consumers League's top scam in 2009; it's now No. 2, representing one in four of the complaint reports that the group receives. The trick costs victims an average of $371.

What to do

Before depositing a check from an unfamiliar source, check with the institution whose name appears on it. And because the bank's contact information on the check could belong to the scammer, search for the institution's phone number and address separately.

Phishing, spoofing, and identity theft

Scammers use e-mail messages, phone calls, and other ways to trick people into revealing their passwords, credit-card and Social Security numbers, and other personal information they can use to steal identities, open credit lines, and the like.

What to do

Don't respond to e-mail messages or phone calls asking for your passwords or other personal information, no matter how urgent the appeal. Instead, contact your bank or other party to see if it made the request. Don't click on hyperlinks you receive in e-mail messages, and carefully type web addresses into your browser to avoid typos. Scammers sometimes set up bogus sites using common misspellings of legitimate web addresses, a practice known as "typosquatting."

Keep your computer's antivirus and antiphishing software up-to-date. And consider using a browser plug-in, such the free McAfee SiteAdvisor (http://www.siteadvisor.com/), which warns about phishing websites and those that transmit viruses.

The grandparent scam

This one comes as a call from a family member, perhaps someone who identifies himself as your grandson, saying he needs help. The story might be that he was in an accident or arrested while traveling outside the country and needs you to wire emergency money, often to Canada. Such calls have cost victims thousands of dollars.

What to do

Don't give money to anyone without verifying his or her identity. If you get a call from a friend or relative asking for help, politely hang up and call the person's home or cell-phone number to find out if they made the call and the emergency is real. You can also call relatives to help determine that the call is legit.

Travel deals with catches

These vacation offers can often be found at fairs and trade shows, or they might come in unsolicited phone calls, faxes, e-mail, or postcards. They're often used to entice you to attend sales promotions, say, for a vacation time-share. But some are simply stand-alone offers for trips. Despite the hype, the vacations are usually anything but free or even bargain-priced.

After attending the sales pitch, you might find that you're ineligible for the promised trip because you didn't comply with hidden or hard-to-understand terms and conditions. Available travel dates might be limited and accommodations awful unless you pay for upgrades.

What to do

Forget about this type of vacation. If a business has to offer free trips to generate interest, its products or services probably aren't worth considering.

Poorly disclosed extras

After buying a product or service, you find that you're being charged for something you never meant to order. Maybe it's rustproofing for a new car at a dealership, or a club membership or subscription.

Details about extras might be buried in a contract or a website's fine print. Some companies pass credit-card information to third-parties who are ready to charge the minute customers click an "OK" button online or unknowingly give consent.

What to do

Read everything carefully before you sign or click. Question anything that's unclear, and don't proceed until you're satisfied with the answers.

Phony charities

It could come as e-mail or a phone call urging you to help some cause that might be in the news or tugs at your heartstrings. Some charities are outright frauds; others do little, if anything, to help a cause.

What to do

Don't respond immediately to a solicitation. Instead, check out the group with the major charity watchdogs: the American Institute of Philanthropy (http://www.charitywatch.org/); the Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance (www.give.org); and the Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/). And make sure you're dealing with the right group. Many con artists use names similar to legitimate charities. For local groups that don't appear on watchdog reports, ask the charity for further information, or donate through a local fundraising federation, such as the United Way, that screens groups.

If you want to help during an emergency, such as a flood or famine, stick with major established charities such as the Red Cross. Charity watchdogs often post names of legitimate groups that help victims.

Health-products fraud

Scammers are always ready to strike after reports of promising dietary supplements and other "medical breakthroughs" hit the news. Websites spring up overnight hawking products—acai berry supplements, for example—even though there's scant evidence of their benefits. The sites might feature celebrity "experts" or phony "reader" comments. Many offer free trials in order to get your credit- or debit-card number and then enroll you in ongoing fee-based programs.

What to do

Buy health products only from companies you know and trust. Double-check the terms and conditions if you're signing up for a free trial that requires you to give payment information.

Sweepstakes scams

Who doesn't want to win a big prize? But if you respond to mail declaring that you're a finalist, or even a winner, the only ones who'll be stuffing their pockets will be the scammers who sent it to you.

Many of these mailings or prize-related phone calls imply that buying something increases your chances of winning. In another variation, you might be told that you have to mail an advance payment to cover taxes, shipping and handling, or other incidental costs of processing or delivering your fabulous prize. Of course, you'll get nothing in return.

What to do

By law, buying services or merchandise can't increase your odds of winning a sweepstakes. Just saying no if you're asked to respond to a prize or sweepstakes promotion will increase your odds—of not getting ripped off.

Advance-fee loans

This one involves companies promising to get you a loan or credit card even if you have bad credit. But after paying the required fee, you might not hear from the company again, or you might be offered a debit or stored-value card. Such offers appear in ads or on websites run by companies that engage in this type of "service." It's illegal for a company doing business by phone to promise a loan and require a fee before it's delivered.

What to do

Avoid companies that promise to get you a loan but don't seem interested in your credit history, the Federal Trade Commission warns. And never pay an advance fee for a loan, even if it's for "insurance," "processing," or "paperwork."

This article appeared in Consumer Reports Money Adviser.

Posted: February 2011 — Consumer Reports Money Adviser issue: February 2011

This insurance ‘deal’ might cost more

This insurance ‘deal’ might cost more

Last reviewed: July 2011

This article appeared in
July 2011 Consumer Reports Magazine.

Illustration by Eric Westbrook/Getty Images

If you're a member of an association such as AARP or the Elks, you've probably seen the pitches for auto, health, homeowners, or life insurance. The ads sometimes feature claims that the policies offer big discounts for members and don't require medical exams.

But when Joseph Hasper, a retiree in Franklin, Tenn., checked out the promise of a "big deal" for Elks members of up to a 15 percent group discount on auto and home insurance from MetLife, he was shocked to find the opposite of a discount. The rate quoted was 15 percent higher than what a local MetLife agent had offered him only days before, Hasper says. MetLife did not comment.

Insurance companies get a good deal from associations because the group members are a ready list of prospects, which can reduce marketing costs. Endorsement of consumer (or small-business) insurance products is a good deal for associations because it can provide royalties from policies sold and attract new members or keep their current members happy.

But how good a deal do dues-paying members get? Association-sponsored, or "affinity," insurance might not be a great bargain for consumers. Here's why:

You might not get a discount

"There really isn't any discount on life and health insurance because premiums have to be actuarially justified," says Denise Friday, president of the Professional Insurance Marketing Association. Rates are based on loss risk, not membership status. The same is true for disability insurance, a leading type of association coverage, and dental plans.

Auto and homeowners insurance premiums must also be actuarially justified. Some of the reduced sales costs from affinity marketing might be passed on to members as a discount. But an individual's discount is purely hit or miss because personal risk factors can weigh more or less heavily in the rate calculation.

For example, two Consumer Reports staffers compared affinity quotes with their own coverage. The same car insurance from AAA would have cost one reporter $152 more a year, or almost 14 percent. An AARP policy from The Hartford would have saved an editor $109 a year, or 3 percent.

An association quote "may be the best rate that the affinity insurer has to offer you, but it's not necessarily the best rate you can get in the broader marketplace," says Brad Cooper, senior vice president of operations at InsWeb, an insurance-shopping site.

You might not qualify

Members generally don't gain any special advantage in qualifying for coverage. But what they could get is an offer of group life insurance, which might not require a medical exam. Group premiums can cost significantly more than individual rates because underwriters have to factor in "adverse selection"—a greater likelihood that less healthy buyers will be attracted by the no-examination rule.

How much higher can group rates be? That varies. For example, a $1 million, 30-year rising-premium CPA Life Plan policy, issued by Prudential through the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), would cost a male policyholder an estimated average monthly premium of $625 (with a "select" risk rating) to $1,000 (if he was a standard risk) from age 50 through 80.

By comparison, a $1 million, 30-year-term, fixed-premium individual life insurance policy would cost a 50-year-old male between $250 a month (if he had a "preferred plus" risk rating) and $500 a month (with a standard rating), says Byron Udell, founder and CEO of AccuQuote, an Internet brokerage.

A Prudential spokeswoman says that ease of obtaining coverage is important but that the AICPA also offers individually rated life policies with "competitive" rates and that require a medical exam.

Insurers might still weed out the highest risks in a given group by requiring applicants to answer a "few simple questions." The wrong answers disqualify around 10 percent of applicants, Udell says.

A subsidy for associations

To form a marketing relationship with you, insurers pay royalties or fees, which "produce substantial revenues for the sponsoring associations," according to a 2003 study, the latest available, by the American Society of Association Executives. For example, AARP Services, the for-profit arm of the nonprofit membership organization and a big player in affinity marketing, collected almost $657 million in royalty revenues from the sale of insurance and other products and services in 2009.

That means your premiums don't just pay the cost of your insurance. They also provide a subsidy to your association that averages 3 to 6 percent of premiums but can run as high as 29 percent. What do members get for that? In the 2003 study, about two-thirds were satisfied; the most common complaints were about premium increases, slow or inadequate claims settlement, and inadequate coverage.

Do not let Casey Anthony make any money from her childs death

Do not let Casey Anthony make any money from her childs death. Refuse to buy any books attached to her, do not watch any interviews she will be paid to do. (Who would believe anything she says anyway). DO not go to any movie she would profit from. No one should be paid to murder their own child.

Do not buy anything to help Cayce profit from her childs death

Do not let Casey Anthony make any money from her childs death. Refuse to buy any books attached to her, do not watch any interviews she will be paid to do. (Who would believe anything she says anyway). DO not go to any movie she would profit from. No one should be paid to murder their own child.