F'ing insurance industry

"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 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.

- 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.

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"

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

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

"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

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)

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

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