F'ing insurance industry

[gatt]

My employer chose perhaps the most expensive and most useless insurance
policy they could, and today I called up Allegis Benefits and chewed them
up. Check this out:

"What is not covered under all plans:
- Suicide or attempted suicide while sane or insane
- Acts of war (declared or undeclared)
- Your commission of a felony
- Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
aircraft..."

So flying a plane puts me in company with suicides and criminals. She
thought that was funny. Just to clarify, I asked her: If I walk into a prop
or go streaking across the runway and get clobbered by a landing jet, I am
not "operating, riding in or descending" and so I am covered. "Strictly
speaking, yes," she replied.

I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees will
never be welcome in my cockpit. That should be a standing code among GA
pilots: If an insurance employee wants to fly, he or she can take a jet or
leap from a building. There's no room in general aviation for people who
liken pilots to felons and the insane.

-c

[Jay Honeck]

> I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees will
> never be welcome in my cockpit. That should be a standing code among GA
> pilots: If an insurance employee wants to fly, he or she can take a jet
or
> leap from a building. There's no room in general aviation for people who
> liken pilots to felons and the insane.

Your anger should be directed at your employer, not the insurance company
who simply tried to come up with the cheapest piece-of-crap-policy your
employer was willing to buy.

That said, I hate insurance companies even more than you do. You wouldn't
believe what it costs to insure my little hotel -- and, since they all work
in cahoots with each other, no other insurance company will even give me a
QUOTE, let alone offer a lower rate.

It ought to be illegal.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> My employer chose perhaps the most expensive and most useless insurance
> policy they could, and today I called up Allegis Benefits and chewed them
> up. Check this out:
>
> "What is not covered under all plans:
> - Suicide or attempted suicide while sane or insane
> - Acts of war (declared or undeclared)
> - Your commission of a felony
> - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
> while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> aircraft..."
>

One policy I had excluded those things and also riding on a motorcycle,
riding a bicycle in an "urban" environment, scuba diving, and injuries or
death resulting from riding in a motor vehicle if you weren't wearing a seat
belt.


I think it would read much simpler, and be a shorter document, if they just
said what situations they *did* cover.

What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it arguable
that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"

Most of the time we are pretty powerless to do anything. The worst one, at
least around here where we are close to a nuclear power plant, is that
homeowner's insurance won't cover that at all. The power company has, by
legislation, been absolved of responsibility, and the state and federal
government won't help either. However, the bank does point out explicitly
that in such a case the homeowner will be required to pay the balance of the
loan (i.e., it will be called) which means for virtually everyone, immediate
bankruptcy. And, oh yes, you are NOT entitled to a refund of your remaining
insurance premium...

[gatt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:7pekc.17445

> Your anger should be directed at your employer, not the insurance company
> who simply tried to come up with the cheapest piece-of-crap-policy your
> employer was willing to buy.

Ah, yes. Well, they're aware of my anger. The company is a contractor
provider and I was hired through the contractee directly, so when I was
filling out the paperwork the lady at the contract agency said "Our medical
isn't very good, but contractors get almost as good of dental benefits as
our employees."

Knowing that they couldn't fire me, I said "So, basically, although I'm
representing your company and working on your customer's wide area network,
I'm just the product. The paper pushers and receptionists are the 'actual'
employees here. Thanks for clearing that up."
As punishment for her comment, I didn't enroll in direct deposit. They
drive out and hand-deliver my paycheck each week.

> That said, I hate insurance companies even more than you do. You wouldn't
> believe what it costs to insure my little hotel -... It ought to be
illegal.

Yep.

-c

[Jay Honeck]

> What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it
arguable
> that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"

Ah, no.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:mVekc.17582$RE1.1503458@attbi_s54...
> > What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it
> arguable
> > that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"
>
> Ah, no.


I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.

But that's neither here nor there.

I guess my point is that I think that an insurance policy should not be
referencing God, unless they feel that their customers need to pray for fair
treatment by them.

[Jay Honeck]

> I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.

An omnipotent God and man's free will cannot coexist.

Therefore, you are correct -- an insurance company should not be referencing
God -- unless they believe their insured's bad "luck" to be pre-destined.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Defkc.342$kh4.18552@attbi_s52...
> > I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.
>
> An omnipotent God and man's free will cannot coexist.

That is logical. But, unfortunately (IMHO), for these people "faith"
replaces logic.

>
> Therefore, you are correct -- an insurance company should not be
referencing
> God -- unless they believe their insured's bad "luck" to be pre-destined.

An insurance company who knew beforehand what each insured's losses would be
would be quite profitable indeed.

[Bill Denton]

If IIRC, the term "Act Of God" goes back to English Common Law.

Now this part gets confusing, so please bear with me. The term is not act of
God, which would imply a literal act of God, it is "Act Of God", which is a
label used in law to describe a specific collection of events.

So, if a blind person could suddenly see, it might well be an act of God,
but it would not be an "Act Of God", as it would not belong to the group of
events covered by that term.

So, when you come across "Act Of God" in an insurance policy, the insurer is
not saying that it was an event caused by a higher power, they are simply
saying that it was an event that meets the long established legal definition
of an "Act Of God".

Ain't legal stuff fun?



"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:mVekc.17582$RE1.1503458@attbi_s54...
> > > What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it
> > arguable
> > > that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"
> >
> > Ah, no.
>
>
> I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.
>
> But that's neither here nor there.
>
> I guess my point is that I think that an insurance policy should not be
> referencing God, unless they feel that their customers need to pray for
fair
> treatment by them.
>
>

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> If IIRC, the term "Act Of God" goes back to English Common Law.
>
> Now this part gets confusing, so please bear with me. The term is not act
of
> God, which would imply a literal act of God, it is "Act Of God", which is
a
> label used in law to describe a specific collection of events.
>
> So, if a blind person could suddenly see, it might well be an act of God,
> but it would not be an "Act Of God", as it would not belong to the group
of
> events covered by that term.
>
> So, when you come across "Act Of God" in an insurance policy, the insurer
is
> not saying that it was an event caused by a higher power, they are simply
> saying that it was an event that meets the long established legal
definition
> of an "Act Of God".
>
> Ain't legal stuff fun?
>

I figured it was something like that, I just wish they clearly defined what
those risks were.

Oh, legal stuff is a blast. Just follow the SCO story (www.groklaw.net) for
a while to see some "fun" things that can happen.

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...
> I figured it was something like that, I just wish they clearly defined
what
> those risks were.

I am nearly certain I've seen at least one policy that DID actually define
"Act Of God". My guess is that it's not uncommon to see such an explicit
definition, where that term is used in the policy.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
I am nearly certain I've seen at least one policy that DID actually define
"Act Of God".
<<

I'd like to see the fallout should they redefine it as "Act Of Allah"

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[EDR]

In article >, Bill Denton
> wrote:

> So, when you come across "Act Of God" in an insurance policy, the insurer is
> not saying that it was an event caused by a higher power, they are simply
> saying that it was an event that meets the long established legal definition
> of an "Act Of God".

Sounds like the FAA's definition of "congested area".

[Richard Kaplan]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
. net...

> An insurance company who knew beforehand what each insured's losses would
be
> would be quite profitable indeed.

Actually, such an insurance company would probably have no business.
Presumably they would only insure people whose expected losses would cost
less than the insurance policy. In that case, anyway whose business they
agreed to underwrite would be better off just self-insuring.

It would be like going to a casino where the house always wins.. the casino
would quickly go under.



--------------------
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[BTIZ]

This is actually a standard wording on most "group policy", unless you are
to cheap to buy your own personal insurance and pay a little more to get
around the pilot issue. And you may still have to deal with the "acts of
war" and suicide. Acts of war normally deal with active military in combat,
but since 9-11, that has changed.

BT

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> My employer chose perhaps the most expensive and most useless insurance
> policy they could, and today I called up Allegis Benefits and chewed them
> up. Check this out:
>
> "What is not covered under all plans:
> - Suicide or attempted suicide while sane or insane
> - Acts of war (declared or undeclared)
> - Your commission of a felony
> - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
> while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> aircraft..."
>
> So flying a plane puts me in company with suicides and criminals. She
> thought that was funny. Just to clarify, I asked her: If I walk into a
prop
> or go streaking across the runway and get clobbered by a landing jet, I am
> not "operating, riding in or descending" and so I am covered. "Strictly
> speaking, yes," she replied.
>
> I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees will
> never be welcome in my cockpit. That should be a standing code among GA
> pilots: If an insurance employee wants to fly, he or she can take a jet
or
> leap from a building. There's no room in general aviation for people who
> liken pilots to felons and the insane.
>
> -c
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article <Defkc.342$kh4.18552@attbi_s52>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.
>
> An omnipotent God and man's free will cannot coexist.

Are you saying that an all-powerful God is not able to
create man with free will?

--
Bob Noel

[G.R. Patterson III]

gatt wrote:
>
> - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
> while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> aircraft..."

Fairly standard.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Jay Honeck]

> Are you saying that an all-powerful God is not able to
> create man with free will?

I'm saying it would illogical for Him to do so.

Omnipotence implies that He knows everything -- including the next choice
you are about to make.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I am nearly certain I've seen at least one policy that DID actually define
> "Act Of God".

You probably have. The logical conclusion from Mr. Denton's information is that there
exists a legal definition somewhere of what constitutes an "Act of God", so it would
not be out of the question for some companies to include that in the policies.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter R.]

gatt wrote:

> As punishment for her comment, I didn't enroll in direct deposit. They
> drive out and hand-deliver my paycheck each week.

Which, in order to deposit that check, you have to take time out of your
business day to drive/walk to the bank and either wait in line inside or
at the drive-up. Once the check is deposited into your account, your
bank will then make you wait three business days for the check to clear
before the funds are available for your use.

Yeah, you were punishing them with that decision, alright...

--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:_2jkc.1021$Ik.124282@attbi_s53...
> > Are you saying that an all-powerful God is not able to
> > create man with free will?

A perfectly valid Philosphy 101 conundrum. Rephrasing of the classic "can
an omnipotent being create a mountain he cannot move?"

On the other hand, Jay probably would've flunked the class...

> I'm saying it would illogical for Him to do so.

Logic has nothing to do with omnipotence. An omnipotent being certainly can
act illogically, should he choose.

> Omnipotence implies that He knows everything -- including the next choice
> you are about to make.

Someone else knowing what you're going to do does not mean you have no free
will. It simply means he knows what you're going to do. As long as you are
still capable of making the decision one way or the other, you have free
will.

Sounds like you're confusing the omnipotence of a single being with a
universe that is completely deterministic.

Which brings me to the whole point of this post: What kind of aircraft
would an omnipotent being fly? Would it matter if he was acting logically
or not? Does the fact that he knows where you're going to fly to next mean
you have no free will?

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> > I am nearly certain I've seen at least one policy that DID actually
define
> > "Act Of God".
>
> You probably have. The logical conclusion from Mr. Denton's information is
that there
> exists a legal definition somewhere of what constitutes an "Act of God",
so it would
> not be out of the question for some companies to include that in the
policies.

I'll go one further, and suggest that the definition may actually vary from
policy to policy, for those that bother to define the term. A definition in
the legal contract would supersede any default definition provided for in
the law.

Pete

[Teacherjh]

>>
Someone else knowing what you're going to do does not mean you have no free
will. It simply means he knows what you're going to do. As long as you are
still capable of making the decision one way or the other, you have free
will.
<<

Nope.

If by "free will" we mean that one can make their own decisions and act on
them, and by "determinsim" we mean that every aspect of the future is known or
knowable (predetermined), then in a deterministic universe, one can have the
illusion of "free will" but the will is not really free. That someone else
"knows" implies that it is knowable, and thus that it is determined.

The whole thing hinges on what we mean by "you"... in the sense that "you" make
a decision. Once you examine the synapses and such, the idea of the "you"
making the decision becomes fuzzy to the point of senselessness. It's not like
there's some mystical "thing" that makes the decision - the decision is the
result of lots and lots of "things" coming together. We use the shorthand
"you" to mean this, and therein lies the conundrum.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jay Honeck]

> Nope.
>
> If by "free will" we mean that one can make their own decisions and act on
> them, and by "determinsim" we mean that every aspect of the future is
known or
> knowable (predetermined), then in a deterministic universe, one can have
the
> illusion of "free will" but the will is not really free. That someone
else
> "knows" implies that it is knowable, and thus that it is determined

Precisely. Thanks, Jose.

(BTW: I *knew* you were going to post that... :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

Why do you think that your employers insurance policy should cover your
high-risk activities?

Every risk that is covered has some theoretical cost and the line has to be
drawn somewhere. The cheapest policies will always exclude high risk
activities like scuba, high altitude mountaineering and private flying.

Mike
MU-2

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> My employer chose perhaps the most expensive and most useless insurance
> policy they could, and today I called up Allegis Benefits and chewed them
> up. Check this out:
>
> "What is not covered under all plans:
> - Suicide or attempted suicide while sane or insane
> - Acts of war (declared or undeclared)
> - Your commission of a felony
> - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
> while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> aircraft..."
>
> So flying a plane puts me in company with suicides and criminals. She
> thought that was funny. Just to clarify, I asked her: If I walk into a
prop
> or go streaking across the runway and get clobbered by a landing jet, I am
> not "operating, riding in or descending" and so I am covered. "Strictly
> speaking, yes," she replied.
>
> I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees will
> never be welcome in my cockpit. That should be a standing code among GA
> pilots: If an insurance employee wants to fly, he or she can take a jet
or
> leap from a building. There's no room in general aviation for people who
> liken pilots to felons and the insane.
>
> -c
>
>

[Circuit Breaker]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:

> Oh, legal stuff is a blast. Just follow the SCO story (www.groklaw.net) for
> a while to see some "fun" things that can happen.

Hehehe... I guess I'm just gonna have to jump on that bandwagon and read
up - I've noticed lately that the clamour over the SCO suit has somewhat
declined in recent weeks over in the Linux newsgroups... must not be too
many new lawsuits going on.

SCO get bought by anyone yet? Go bankrupt yet?
--
--x _x | CJ Chitwood
| | |_|___ _ _ ____x | Unregistered Linux User # 18,000,002
| |_| | , | | |\ \/ | Go ahead. Show me where the code is.
|____|_|_|_|___|/\_\ | Sink the ship to reply by e-mail

[Peter Duniho]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> Nope.
>
> If by "free will" we mean that one can make their own decisions and act on
> them, and by "determinsim" we mean that every aspect of the future is
known or
> knowable (predetermined), then in a deterministic universe, one can have
the
> illusion of "free will" but the will is not really free. That someone
else
> "knows" implies that it is knowable, and thus that it is determined.

Nope. You presume that the knowing comes about through some form of
determinism. But an omnipotent being is not so limited. An omnipotent
being would just as easily know in advance of non-deterministic events and
deterministic events.

I refer you back to the immoveable mountain paradox.

I also chastise you for not including at least some semblance of on-topic
content. I won't bother in this post do the same, since it apparently goes
unappreciated. :)

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:qbkkc.1497$I%1.174358@attbi_s51...
> (BTW: I *knew* you were going to post that... :-)

Omnipotence will get you everywhere.

[John Gaquin]

"gatt" > wrote in message

>
> My employer chose perhaps the most expensive and most useless insurance
> policy they could......

> - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
> while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> aircraft..."

Not unusual.

>
> So flying a plane puts me in company with suicides and criminals.

Only to the extent that your activity constitutes a relatively high risk in
the context of the population as a whole. The list you posted contains high
risks or risks the insuror can't mitigate.


>
> I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees will
> never be welcome in my cockpit.

Oooo. I'll bet that hurt!


>There's no room in general aviation for people who
> liken pilots to felons and the insane.

Or, one might muse, for folks who fly off the handle over minor, usual, and
predictable inconveniences.

[John Gaquin]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
>
> I'd like to see the fallout should they redefine it as "Act Of Allah"

In the world of Islam, *everything* is an "Act of Allah"

[Jay Honeck]

> In the world of Islam, *everything* is an "Act of Allah"

Which pretty well explains most of the problems in the world today.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave S]

And the company earns the penny or two of interest on YOUR money too

Dave

Peter R. wrote:

> gatt wrote:
>
>
>>As punishment for her comment, I didn't enroll in direct deposit. They
>>drive out and hand-deliver my paycheck each week.
>
>
> Which, in order to deposit that check, you have to take time out of your
> business day to drive/walk to the bank and either wait in line inside or
> at the drive-up. Once the check is deposited into your account, your
> bank will then make you wait three business days for the check to clear
> before the funds are available for your use.
>
> Yeah, you were punishing them with that decision, alright...
>

[BllFs6]

>In the world of Islam, *everything* is an "Act of Allah"

Well,,,if thats the case....isnt everything the USA doing Allahs will? and if
so whats their beef with the USA?

Sounds to me if they are unhappy they need to take it up with Allah....

The question one really needs to ask themselves is "who would Jesus bomb?" :)

take care

Blll

[BllFs6]

>omeone else knowing what you're going to do does not mean you have no free
>will. It simply means he knows what you're going to do. As long as you are
>still capable of making the decision one way or the other, you h

and so on and so on...

Brings up an idea that occured to me not too long ago.....

When push comes to shove everything is random (at the quantum level)....

And when push comes to shove....people are just fancy computers with built in
flaws and random decision trees at some level...

And if you look at it that way its hard to come up with "free will" unless you
just wave a magic wand and say there is something like a soul (not saying there
is or isnt here)...

But here is the point I am getting too...

So, you have this human computer with no free will....but at some level
it...and everything else that happens in the world is random....more so the
farther you go into the future....

So, you can have NO free will....yet the future is UNPREDICTABLE.....

an exact opposite of the " free will but the future is know" paradox....

take care

Blll

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
> What kind of aircraft would an omnipotent being fly?

God has an infinite supply of new Bonanzas. He amuses Himself by
crashing them while he is playing doctor.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Teacherjh]

>>
> "knows" implies that it is knowable, and thus that it is determined.

Nope. You presume that the knowing comes about through some form of
determinism.
<<

Knowing (and being correct) implies that the thing that is known will happen,
and will happen just one way - the way it does happen. The way it is known to
will happen. So it can only happen THAT way, otherwise the entity knowing
would be incorrect (and would not "know"). Thus it is determined.

>>
But an omnipotent being is not so limited. An omnipotent
being would just as easily know in advance of non-deterministic events and
deterministic events.

I refer you back to the immoveable mountain paradox.
<<

Well, that is a paradox. The question has no "truth value" (answer). Consider
the statement "this statement is false". Is it true? I can get even more
convoluted if you like; the upshot is there are questions with no answer, and
there are questions whose answer exists, but cannot be known. Determinsim does
not imply knowledge, but knowlege does imply determinism. I refer you to
"Godel Escher Bach".

>>
I also chastise you for not including at least some semblance of on-topic
content. I won't bother in this post do the same, since it apparently goes
unappreciated. :)
<<

This is a thread about insurance. Insurance is based on having an unknowable,
and having the company knowing as much about it as it can. Ironically, once it
knows everything about it, it becomes superfluous. So insurance eats itself on
the same altar as determinism and free will.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

gatt wrote:

> My employer chose perhaps the most expensive and most useless insurance
> policy they could, and today I called up Allegis Benefits and chewed them
> up. Check this out:
>
> "What is not covered under all plans:
> - Suicide or attempted suicide while sane or insane
> - Acts of war (declared or undeclared)
> - Your commission of a felony
> - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
> while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> aircraft..."

Is this life insurance or medical insurance? I've seen these exclusions
in life insurance polices but not medical ones (not that I've seen many
medical insurance policies in my time, but still, that's a new one on me).

If it is a medical policy, I wonder if you could buy a supplemental
policy somewhere that covers only the stuff excluded by the main policy.
Sorta like a pilot's add-on insurance. If we aren't really as much
of a risk to insure that they think we are, someone could make a mint
selling these policies, no?

[TripFarmer]

Jay,

You should call my insurance agent.


Trip

In article <7pekc.17445$RE1.1491868@attbi_s54>, says...
>
>> I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees will
>> never be welcome in my cockpit. That should be a standing code among GA
>> pilots: If an insurance employee wants to fly, he or she can take a jet
>or
>> leap from a building. There's no room in general aviation for people who
>> liken pilots to felons and the insane.
>
>Your anger should be directed at your employer, not the insurance company
>who simply tried to come up with the cheapest piece-of-crap-policy your
>employer was willing to buy.
>
>That said, I hate insurance companies even more than you do. You wouldn't
>believe what it costs to insure my little hotel -- and, since they all work
>in cahoots with each other, no other insurance company will even give me a
>QUOTE, let alone offer a lower rate.
>
>It ought to be illegal.
>--
>Jay Honeck
>Iowa City, IA
>Pathfinder N56993
>www.AlexisParkInn.com
>"Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[ET]

(Teacherjh) wrote in
:

>>>
>> "knows" implies that it is knowable, and thus that it is determined.
>
> Nope. You presume that the knowing comes about through some form of
> determinism.
> <<
>
> Knowing (and being correct) implies that the thing that is known will
> happen, and will happen just one way - the way it does happen. The
> way it is known to will happen. So it can only happen THAT way,
> otherwise the entity knowing would be incorrect (and would not
> "know"). Thus it is determined.
>
>>>
> But an omnipotent being is not so limited. An omnipotent
> being would just as easily know in advance of non-deterministic events
> and deterministic events.
>
> I refer you back to the immoveable mountain paradox.
> <<
>
> Well, that is a paradox. The question has no "truth value" (answer).
> Consider the statement "this statement is false". Is it true? I can
> get even more convoluted if you like; the upshot is there are
> questions with no answer, and there are questions whose answer exists,
> but cannot be known. Determinsim does not imply knowledge, but
> knowlege does imply determinism. I refer you to "Godel Escher Bach".
>
>>>
> I also chastise you for not including at least some semblance of
> on-topic content. I won't bother in this post do the same, since it
> apparently goes unappreciated. :)
> <<
>
> This is a thread about insurance. Insurance is based on having an
> unknowable, and having the company knowing as much about it as it can.
> Ironically, once it knows everything about it, it becomes
> superfluous. So insurance eats itself on the same altar as
> determinism and free will.
>
> Jose
>
>

The answer is 42.... now what is the question???

It has been said that if both the question and the answer where known in
the same universe, the universe as we know it would cease to exist and
would be replaced by something even more inexplicable... some say this
has already happened.....

<very big grin>

--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Jay Honeck]

> So, you can have NO free will....yet the future is UNPREDICTABLE.....
>
> an exact opposite of the " free will but the future is know" paradox....

Thanks, Bill, for making this discussion even LESS cogent.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[gatt]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

> God has an infinite supply of new Bonanzas. He amuses Himself by
> crashing them while he is playing doctor.

I'm envisioning the George Burns version of God being told his flying is not
covered by his insurance policy. TGIF!

-c

[Otis Winslow]

Hey .. if they actually sold insurance that covered anything we wouldn't
be able to afford it.

[gatt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message

> > As punishment for her comment, I didn't enroll in direct deposit. They
> > drive out and hand-deliver my paycheck each week.
>
> Which, in order to deposit that check, you have to take time out of your
> business day to drive/walk to the bank and either wait in line inside or
> at the drive-up.

Work two blocks from the bank. Deposit it during the spare half hour
between when I get off of work and when I pick up my wife. Takes all of
about three minutes to deposit it at the ATM.

> Once the check is deposited into your account, your bank will then make
you wait three >business days for the check to clear before the funds are
available for your use.

No, usually just overnight. I don't pay that much attention because I'm
rarely so broke that I need the money right away. For example, today I'm
depositing both the check from last week AND this week, 'cause I didn't need
the money enough to bother last week. And even if it takes three days for
those checks to clear, whatever.

> Yeah, you were punishing them with that decision, alright...

So, did belittling my decision make you feel better about yourself?

-c

[gatt]

"Dave S" > wrote in message news:3xskc.125

> And the company earns the penny or two of interest on YOUR money too

Oh, heavens NO! They earned a penny or two?

They spend more than that driving down the street to give me my check.

-c

[gatt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

> > - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other
than
> > while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> > aircraft..."
>
> Fairly standard.

It's crap. I could commit suicide by walking into the prop and I'd be
covered.

Not as bad as my former publisher's trust fund, though. He was 25,
inheriting a fortune over time from his grandfather's uranium mine, but the
provision of the trust was that he couldn't do anything dangerous, like fly
or ride in small airplanes which is something he wants to do about as bad as
anybody. "Here's a bunch of money for you when you're an adult, kid. Have
a mundane life."

-c

[gatt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
news:Gpkkc.18085

> Why do you think that your employers insurance policy should cover your
> high-risk activities?

'Cause I pay my rates and I have no accident record whatsoever. And people
fly. There is no provision against smoking, riding motorcycles, bungee
jumping, rodeo, gun-twirling, sword-swallowing, playing with fireworks,
alcoholism, DUII (non-felony) or any other "high risk activities."

Are you saying that flying is high-risk? Do you tell your passengers this
before they fly with you?

-c

[gatt]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message

> > I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees
will
> > never be welcome in my cockpit.
>
> Oooo. I'll bet that hurt!

Yow. Zing. "Oooo" Good comeback. Feel better now?

"I bet that hurt." Sheesh. What's with all the flak?

> Or, one might muse, for folks who fly off the handle over minor, usual,
and
> predictable inconveniences.

Whatever.
-c

[gatt]

"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message

> > - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other
than
> > while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> > aircraft..."
>
> Is this life insurance or medical insurance?

Ironically, medical. There is no exclusion on the life insurance policy I
purchased through the same company. So I guess if I'm gonna auger, I
better auger hard!

-c

[John Galban]

EDR > wrote in message >...
>
> Sounds like the FAA's definition of "congested area".

Location where a majority of the population is experiencing some
level of sinus blockage.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Mike Rapoport]

You are not paying rates that would cover the risk of flying. It is a
*group* policy, they need to cover risks that apply to *most* people in the
group.

I tell people that the risk of private flying is about ten times greater
than driving.

Mike
MU-2

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> news:Gpkkc.18085
>
> > Why do you think that your employers insurance policy should cover your
> > high-risk activities?
>
> 'Cause I pay my rates and I have no accident record whatsoever. And
people
> fly. There is no provision against smoking, riding motorcycles, bungee
> jumping, rodeo, gun-twirling, sword-swallowing, playing with fireworks,
> alcoholism, DUII (non-felony) or any other "high risk activities."
>
> Are you saying that flying is high-risk? Do you tell your passengers this
> before they fly with you?
>
> -c
>
>

[gatt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message

> You are not paying rates that would cover the risk of flying. It is a
> *group* policy, they need to cover risks that apply to *most* people in
the
> group.
>
> I tell people that the risk of private flying is about ten times greater
> than driving.

Yet, again, they don't exclude motorcycles, bungee jumping, scuba diving,
personal watercraft, rock climbing, auto or horse racing, contact sports,
SMOKING, ALCOHOLISM, DUII, DRUG USE or other common hobbies and habits that
are X-times greater than driving.

Just suicides, war, felons and flying.
-c

[G.R. Patterson III]

gatt wrote:
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> news:Gpkkc.18085
>
> > Why do you think that your employers insurance policy should cover your
> > high-risk activities?
>
> 'Cause I pay my rates and I have no accident record whatsoever.

Well, if you pay the rates, then it's hardly your employer's insurance policy, then,
is it. If you pay the rates, then you can buy a policy that doesn't exclude damage
when you're flying.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[JZ]

> - Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
> while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
> aircraft..."
>

I came across this phrase in my group policy from BCBS. I couldn't
wait for my company's next open enrollment so I could switch to our
other choice for health insurance. BCBS told me those exclusions were
chosen by my employer. The strange thing was when I called the other
insurance company to get a copy of the policy I would be signing up
for, they had no idea what to do. It took a week for someone to find
the wording in the policy and read it to me over the phone. They
wouldn't give me a copy of the policy until after I enrolled.

One other note. I contacted AOPA and asked if they were aware of
health insurance agencies excluding payments for injuries while flying
GA. They never heard of it, were appalled any company would do that,
and suggested I send a copy of my policy. I sent AOPA the copy, and a
request to look into it, but never heard back from them.

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Peter R wrote:
> at the drive-up. Once the check is deposited into your account, your
> bank will then make you wait three business days for the check to clear
> before the funds are available for your use.

What's wrong with your banking system? Have they not heard of networks
yet or something? When I pay cheques into my bank, the funds are available the
next business day.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Peter R.]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> What's wrong with your banking system? Have they not heard of networks
> yet or something? When I pay cheques into my bank, the funds are available the
> next business day.

In the US, most banks will hold checks for three to five, sometimes up
to seven business days before releasing the money to the customer. They
claim it is to ensure the check clears, but in reality it is just a
method for the bank to make extra money on the float (make interest
during the period they hold the funds).

--
Peter

[Peter R.]

gatt wrote:

> No, usually just overnight. I don't pay that much attention because I'm
> rarely so broke that I need the money right away. For example, today I'm
> depositing both the check from last week AND this week, 'cause I didn't need
> the money enough to bother last week. And even if it takes three days for
> those checks to clear, whatever.

Ok, I understand from where you are coming now. "Whatever" does appear
to be the right attitude in your case.

> So, did belittling my decision make you feel better about yourself?

Sorry, but I don't agree with you that rejecting direct deposit is
punishing your employer. The decision punishes you, the receiver of the
funds, more than your employer.

You felt that fact important enough to include in your post; I simply
wanted to respond to it. When posting your fiscal strategy in a public
forum, expect that you may not always receive unanimous agreement.
That's Usenet.


--
Peter

[gatt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message

> > So, did belittling my decision make you feel better about yourself?
>
> Sorry, but I don't agree with you that rejecting direct deposit is
> punishing your employer. The decision punishes you, the receiver of the
> funds, more than your employer.

It's only punishing the HR woman who suggested that contractors (the
programmers, sysadmins, network admins, engineers, etc who are the bread and
butter of the company) get a policy that's almost as good as the "actual
employees." Meaning the HR staff and the receptionist. So I make the
"actual employee" who said it drive my paycheck out to me every week.

-c

[Teacherjh]

>>
So I make the
"actual employee" who said it drive my paycheck out to me every week.
<<

She does it on salary. What's it to her?

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Peter R.]

gatt ) wrote:

> So I make the "actual employee" who said it drive my paycheck out
> to me every week.

She must like to get out of the office or else she would simply mail the
check to you. :)

--
Peter

[Mike Rapoport]

Look around your workplace and I'll bet that you will find a lot more people
who participate in the other activities than there are who fly.

Mike
MU-2

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>
> > You are not paying rates that would cover the risk of flying. It is a
> > *group* policy, they need to cover risks that apply to *most* people in
> the
> > group.
> >
> > I tell people that the risk of private flying is about ten times greater
> > than driving.
>
> Yet, again, they don't exclude motorcycles, bungee jumping, scuba diving,
> personal watercraft, rock climbing, auto or horse racing, contact sports,
> SMOKING, ALCOHOLISM, DUII, DRUG USE or other common hobbies and habits
that
> are X-times greater than driving.
>
> Just suicides, war, felons and flying.
> -c
>
>

[gatt]

"Peter R." > wrote in message

> > So I make the "actual employee" who said it drive my paycheck out
> > to me every week.
>
> She must like to get out of the office or else she would simply mail the
> check to you. :)

If you saw what she looked like, you'd understand the alternate reason why I
like her to hand-deliver my check. Bitchy, but cute!

-c

[gatt]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
news:KGulc.4312

> Look around your workplace and I'll bet that you will find a lot more
people
> who participate in the other activities than there are who fly.

Absolutely. That's why the coverage-while-flying blackout torques me. The
guys that smoke Camels during break and lunch are covered. I'm not.

At the last place I worked, they required drug screening (for office jobs)
as a condition of employment, but I couldn't even count the number of times
we all went to TGI Friday's on Friday afternoons. The boss bought pints all
around, some of the folks had more than one, and then everybody went out
into rush hour traffic to drive home. Nothing wrong with sending your team
onto the freeway with alcohol in their blood, but if they have a puff on a
Friday night, that's bad. This is the kinda screwball logic that I'm
talking about.

-c

[gatt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

> > 'Cause I pay my rates and I have no accident record whatsoever.
>
> Well, if you pay the rates, then it's hardly your employer's insurance
policy, then,
> is it. If you pay the rates, then you can buy a policy that doesn't
exclude damage
> when you're flying.

*sigh*

Sheesh. I'll be glad to FAX you the policy if you're that interested. I
get a 30% discount through the employer but, yes, I pay the rates. I
cannot presently afford to get my own policy because I work 30 hours a week,
I'm going to instrument and commercial flight school, and my wife is getting
laid off in three weeks.

-c

[Snowbird]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message >...
> You are not paying rates that would cover the risk of flying. It is a
> *group* policy, they need to cover risks that apply to *most* people in the
> group.

Mike,
I don't know the specifics of his policy, but our group insurance at
work covers smokers, the morbidly obese, heavy drinkers, morbidly
obese smokers, motorcycle riders, rock climbers and others whose risks
don't apply to *most* people in the group. It does not contain
language excluding
people who operate a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

I don't want special treatment -- I just want to be treated the same
as other people at work whose risks don't apply to *most* people in
the group.

> I tell people that the risk of private flying is about ten times greater
> than driving.

That's probably true. On the same level as, say, driving a motorcycle
as I understand it.

But it doesn't seem to obviate a point, which is that the insurance
industry is stigmatizing GA beyond other common increased risks.

Gatt, look around. I was able to find life insurance elsewhere which
covered my flying, at about the same cost for only slightly less
coverage.

My $0.02
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message >...

> Well, if you pay the rates, then it's hardly your employer's insurance
> policy, then, is it.

Um, I assume he's speaking of insurance made available to employees
as a supplemental benefit which they can purchase.

The employee pays for it, but because it's part of a benefit package
put together by the employer, it *is* the employer's insurance policy.

> If you pay the rates, then you can buy a policy that doesn't exclude damage
> when you're flying.

Supposedly such employer policies are a "good deal" and substantial discount,
but it's not necessarily true.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Snowbird]

"gatt" > wrote in message >...
> "TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
> > Is this life insurance or medical insurance?

> Ironically, medical. There is no exclusion on the life insurance policy I
> purchased through the same company. So I guess if I'm gonna auger, I
> better auger hard!

Gadzooks, that's bizarre! I've never heard of such exclusions on a
medical policy, especially where there's no similar exclusion on the
life insurance policy.

I wonder if it's a reaction to a specific circumstance that company
encountered. Do they exclude smoking/driving while drinking/etc?

Cheers,
Sydney

[ET]

"gatt" > wrote in
:

>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
>
>> > 'Cause I pay my rates and I have no accident record whatsoever.
>>
>> Well, if you pay the rates, then it's hardly your employer's
>> insurance
> policy, then,
>> is it. If you pay the rates, then you can buy a policy that doesn't
> exclude damage
>> when you're flying.
>
> *sigh*
>
> Sheesh. I'll be glad to FAX you the policy if you're that interested.
> I get a 30% discount through the employer but, yes, I pay the rates.
> I cannot presently afford to get my own policy because I work 30
> hours a week, I'm going to instrument and commercial flight school,
> and my wife is getting laid off in three weeks.
>
> -c
>
>

If this is a "voluntary" group life policy, and you are buying over 100K,
and you are in excellent health, it is very likely you can do better on
your own, regardless of the alleged 30% discount.

Group disability policies also have these kinds of exclusions, so take a
good look before buying.


--
ET >:)


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams

[Paul Sengupta]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:qbkkc.1497$I%1.174358@attbi_s51...
> > (BTW: I *knew* you were going to post that... :-)
>
> Omnipotence will get you everywhere.

Then why would you need a plane?

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>...
> > I tell people that the risk of private flying is about ten times greater
> > than driving.
>
> That's probably true. On the same level as, say, driving a motorcycle
> as I understand it.

Wasn't it about 8 times?

But isn't flying 15-20 times safer if you have a good attitude?
(e.g. attending (or wanting to attend) CAA safety seminars in the UK
or participating in the Wings (?) thing in the US)

That would make it safer than the average for driving. But then I'm a
firm believer that driving with a good attitude and being attentive makes
that much safer, but I've never seen any figures...which would probably
make it safer than good attitude attentive flying. Mmm.

Paul

[gatt]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message

> I don't want special treatment -- I just want to be treated the same
> as other people at work whose risks don't apply to *most* people in
> the group.

EXACTLY! And I want to pay the same rate, (at the most) as the fat-ass
chain smokers I see outside the office all day long, and the same rate as my
alcoholic former boss who bought everybody pints of beer on Fridays before
we all jumped in our SUVs and hit the freeway. And the same rate as my
coworker who has had two minor accidents on his motorcycle in the last year.

> Gatt, look around. I was able to find life insurance elsewhere which
> covered my flying, at about the same cost for only slightly less
> coverage.

Will do! Thanks for the understanding.

-c

[gatt]

"Snowbird" > wrote in message

> > Ironically, medical. There is no exclusion on the life insurance policy
I
> > purchased through the same company. So I guess if I'm gonna auger, I
> > better auger hard!
>
> Gadzooks, that's bizarre! I've never heard of such exclusions on a
> medical policy, especially where there's no similar exclusion on the
> life insurance policy.

I had the same thought when I read it.

> I wonder if it's a reaction to a specific circumstance that company
> encountered. Do they exclude smoking/driving while drinking/etc?

They don't exclude smoking, but there's a big list of exclusions that you
have to go to some website to dig up. The only four that are mentioned in
the documentation, and which apply only to medical, are coverage while
committing suicide ("sane or insane"), a felony, while flying small planes
("operating, riding or descending in an airplane except as a fare-paying
passenger on a commercial carrier...") and acts of war.

The latter bugs me too even though it doesn't apply to me. If you're called
to duty and then killed protecting their corporate asses, you're not
covered.

If there are similar exclusions in the life insurance policy, they're not
explicitly stated in the literature and you'd have to look them up to find
out.
-c

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> > news:qbkkc.1497$I%1.174358@attbi_s51...
> > > (BTW: I *knew* you were going to post that... :-)
> >
> > Omnipotence will get you everywhere.
>
> Then why would you need a plane?

So that you could pretend you're a doctor. :-)

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Paul Sengupta]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> there's a big list of exclusions
<snipped lots>
> and acts of war.
>
> The latter bugs me too even though it doesn't apply to me. If you're
called
> to duty and then killed protecting their corporate asses, you're not
> covered.

Well, in that case I guess they medical insurance wouldn't matter
much...the life insurance would surely kick in at this point!

But if you were injured, it would be another matter. And would
"acts of war" include a terrorist attack?

Paul

[G.R. Patterson III]

Paul Sengupta wrote:
>
> But if you were injured, it would be another matter. And would
> "acts of war" include a terrorist attack?

There was considerable argument about that right after 9/11 with insurance companies
(not surprisingly) claiming that it does. Since they're reaching the final stages of
settlement for the WTC property (the claims are in court), I believe the courts have
held that terrorist acts are not acts of war, but I'm not certain.

There was a short flurry of attempts on the part of aircraft insurance companies to
sell "terrorist insurance" riders to existing policies, so it's quite likely that new
policies contain exemptions for damage from terrorist attacks, in addition to those
about acts of war.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 13:37:35 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Paul Sengupta wrote:
>>
>> But if you were injured, it would be another matter. And would
>> "acts of war" include a terrorist attack?
>
>There was considerable argument about that right after 9/11 with insurance companies
>(not surprisingly) claiming that it does. Since they're reaching the final stages of
>settlement for the WTC property (the claims are in court), I believe the courts have
>held that terrorist acts are not acts of war, but I'm not certain.
>
>There was a short flurry of attempts on the part of aircraft insurance companies to
>sell "terrorist insurance" riders to existing policies, so it's quite likely that new
>policies contain exemptions for damage from terrorist attacks, in addition to those
>about acts of war.

Way back, after the riots in Newark, NJ, in '67, there was a story,
probably apocryphal, that the insurance industry had pressured the
governor, in one of his public addresses, to declare that what was
happening was "not a riot, but an insurrection," the latter term being
one of the escape hatches in most insurance policies, and the gov
being a credible public official to make such a designation.

Newark was, may still be, second only to Hartford as a center of the
Insurance biz.

The story played well among those who were skeptical about the
industry.

Don