Hi everyone. I've been invited to comment on this wonderful thread of insanity that's been a back-and-forth between two heavyweights. Ladies and gentlemen, it appears as if we're nearing the end of the fight...DING DING DING!! There's the bell to end the fight, it's in the judges hands now. 10 rounds of jabbing, kicking, biting, punching, gouging and hair-pulling. While we're waiting for the judges decision, let's go into the corners of these two brave opponents.
Reporter: Max...it was a long, hard fight. How do you feel? Max: Wow Bob, you're right about that. I had a worthy opponent. I think that I got a couple of good punches in toward the end that may have tilted it in my direction. We'll have to see what the judges think. I gotta go and find my wife and kids, Bob, we're going to Disneyland after the decision. I'll see ya later. Reporter: Thanks Max, and good luck in the decision!
Reporter: fsalrfas, Max is a tough opponent with a lot of experience. He came into this fight at 37-1, his only loss being against the famous, now retired InsTeacher who whupped him last month and then quit the game. How do you feel you did? fsalrfas: Well, Bob. I put up a good fight and I think I have a chance with the judges. But given the home-town advantage, I think I might have a problem. Reporter: Home town advantage...? This is, ummm, cyberspace? fsalrfas: Well, it sounded good for TV. Hi Mom! Reporter: Uhhhh...good luck fsalrfas!
Now to the judges:
Judge #1 scores it 98-94 MAX
Judge #2 scores it 96-95 MAX
Judge #3 scores it 96-95 fsalrfas
THE WINNAH, ON A SPLIT-DECISION... MaxHerr
This was an interesting thread and frankly, I have a headache that appears as if it will never go completely away. I wish that I would have never even started reading it. Now you two made me go and do what I just did. You both owe me, you both owe the forum, and you both have detention after school.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 07:39 am Post Subject:
Agreed. Would have ended almost as quickly as it started if the Conditional/Temporary Insurance Receipt had been posted first thing, instead of insisting it was a binder.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 09:18 am Post Subject:
I'm appealing the decision. This whole "binder" thing is a straw man.
A binder provides temporary coverage. Temporary insurance can exist without bound coverage. This is because temporary coverage can be subject to some requirements that must be met.
Keep in mind that I specifically said that I have no idea what the CIC says about binders.
I'm gladly willing to concede the point that CA does not allow binders on life insurance. However, this proves that the term "temporary insurance" is not synonymous with "binder".
Please, look at what I wrote, and tell me where I am incorrect about temporary insurance.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 09:36 am Post Subject:
There is nothing for me to re-read. It is entirely consistent with my explanation of a conditional receipt early on.
There is something for you to re-read. Your explanation includes the statement that one must get approved at standard rates.
Now re-read the temporary insurance receipt. There is no requirement of being approved for insurance.
Go back to my example. The client answers questions honestly on the application. They give a check for the premium that clears. There are no "yes" answers on the TLIR. The client gets hit by bus and dies. The next day, they get turned down for insurance because of mental health. With this temporary insurance, the death claim gets paid! Now go back to my first post and tell me where I'm wrong.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 10:29 am Post Subject:
As simple as possible...
Max's view point: Temporary Insurance equals Binder. CA doesn't allow binders for life insurance thus there is no temporary insurance in CA.
My viewpoint: Temporary Insurance does not equal Binder. Temporary insurance is allowed in the state of California as witnessed by MM's TLIR.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 02:30 pm Post Subject:
This could go on ad nauseum. So better not to comment than stoke the fires of misunderstanding.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 08:24 pm Post Subject:
Max, please humor me and continue on this one. If I'm wrong about something I want to know. You have seen MM's TLIR. You have seen my first post. Forget about calling it "temporary insurance". Let's pretend that it's called, "flafjalfjoafj".
Is there something that is incorrect about what I wrote? If so, what is it?
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 04:55 pm Post Subject:
Nothing except failing to call it what it really is: a CONDITIONAL RECEIPT.
:D
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 08:14 pm Post Subject:
Max, until very recently, MassMutual didn't have a conditional receipt. They only had temporary insurance. The conditional receipt part of it is new. The part that gives temporary insurance still gives temporary insurance.
MassMutual calls it "temporary insurance". The state of California calls it "temporary insurance". I call it "temporary insurance". The only one who doesn't is you and that is because you believe that "binder and "temporary insurance" are synonymous.
Max Herr said that with a conditional receipt one had to ultimately be shown to be insurable at standard rates. Since this doesn't meet your definitiona of conditional receipt, how can it be a conditional insurance?
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 02:56 am Post Subject:
Hi everyone. I've been invited to comment on this wonderful thread of insanity that's been a back-and-forth between two heavyweights. Ladies and gentlemen, it appears as if we're nearing the end of the fight...DING DING DING!! There's the bell to end the fight, it's in the judges hands now. 10 rounds of jabbing, kicking, biting, punching, gouging and hair-pulling. While we're waiting for the judges decision, let's go into the corners of these two brave opponents.
Reporter: Max...it was a long, hard fight. How do you feel?
Max: Wow Bob, you're right about that. I had a worthy opponent. I think that I got a couple of good punches in toward the end that may have tilted it in my direction. We'll have to see what the judges think. I gotta go and find my wife and kids, Bob, we're going to Disneyland after the decision. I'll see ya later.
Reporter: Thanks Max, and good luck in the decision!
Reporter: fsalrfas, Max is a tough opponent with a lot of experience. He came into this fight at 37-1, his only loss being against the famous, now retired InsTeacher who whupped him last month and then quit the game. How do you feel you did?
fsalrfas: Well, Bob. I put up a good fight and I think I have a chance with the judges. But given the home-town advantage, I think I might have a problem.
Reporter: Home town advantage...? This is, ummm, cyberspace?
fsalrfas: Well, it sounded good for TV. Hi Mom!
Reporter: Uhhhh...good luck fsalrfas!
Now to the judges:
Judge #1 scores it 98-94 MAX
Judge #2 scores it 96-95 MAX
Judge #3 scores it 96-95 fsalrfas
THE WINNAH, ON A SPLIT-DECISION... MaxHerr
This was an interesting thread and frankly, I have a headache that appears as if it will never go completely away. I wish that I would have never even started reading it. Now you two made me go and do what I just did. You both owe me, you both owe the forum, and you both have detention after school.
InsTeacher 8)
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 07:39 am Post Subject:
Agreed. Would have ended almost as quickly as it started if the Conditional/Temporary Insurance Receipt had been posted first thing, instead of insisting it was a binder.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 09:18 am Post Subject:
I'm appealing the decision. This whole "binder" thing is a straw man.
A binder provides temporary coverage. Temporary insurance can exist without bound coverage. This is because temporary coverage can be subject to some requirements that must be met.
Keep in mind that I specifically said that I have no idea what the CIC says about binders.
I'm gladly willing to concede the point that CA does not allow binders on life insurance. However, this proves that the term "temporary insurance" is not synonymous with "binder".
Please, look at what I wrote, and tell me where I am incorrect about temporary insurance.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 09:36 am Post Subject:
There is nothing for me to re-read. It is entirely consistent with my explanation of a conditional receipt early on.
There is something for you to re-read. Your explanation includes the statement that one must get approved at standard rates.
Now re-read the temporary insurance receipt. There is no requirement of being approved for insurance.
Go back to my example. The client answers questions honestly on the application. They give a check for the premium that clears. There are no "yes" answers on the TLIR. The client gets hit by bus and dies. The next day, they get turned down for insurance because of mental health. With this temporary insurance, the death claim gets paid! Now go back to my first post and tell me where I'm wrong.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 10:29 am Post Subject:
As simple as possible...
Max's view point: Temporary Insurance equals Binder. CA doesn't allow binders for life insurance thus there is no temporary insurance in CA.
My viewpoint: Temporary Insurance does not equal Binder. Temporary insurance is allowed in the state of California as witnessed by MM's TLIR.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 02:30 pm Post Subject:
This could go on ad nauseum. So better not to comment than stoke the fires of misunderstanding.
Posted: Fri May 21, 2010 08:24 pm Post Subject:
Max, please humor me and continue on this one. If I'm wrong about something I want to know. You have seen MM's TLIR. You have seen my first post. Forget about calling it "temporary insurance". Let's pretend that it's called, "flafjalfjoafj".
Is there something that is incorrect about what I wrote? If so, what is it?
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 04:55 pm Post Subject:
Nothing except failing to call it what it really is: a CONDITIONAL RECEIPT.
:D
Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 08:14 pm Post Subject:
Max, until very recently, MassMutual didn't have a conditional receipt. They only had temporary insurance. The conditional receipt part of it is new. The part that gives temporary insurance still gives temporary insurance.
MassMutual calls it "temporary insurance". The state of California calls it "temporary insurance". I call it "temporary insurance". The only one who doesn't is you and that is because you believe that "binder and "temporary insurance" are synonymous.
Max Herr said that with a conditional receipt one had to ultimately be shown to be insurable at standard rates. Since this doesn't meet your definitiona of conditional receipt, how can it be a conditional insurance?
Add your comment