Post-Op Issue
Willow
Tibetan Spirit Highs. Thank you Internet!
And now....
A strange little issue which is one of the small problems associated
with being a post-op transsexual.
I recently decided to increase my life insurance. Now legally, I am a
woman from my birth certificate to my library card. Nor is there any
legal reason why one might have to disclose this in an application for
insurance if none of the medical questions address that issue. Males,
as you know, do not live as long as females. So there are various
issues that arise.
But, and this is a very large but, anyone with half a brain knows that
insurance companies will look for any excuse to avoid playing out on a
policy. Ask the Katerina survivors or those with medical insurance
claims. One little tiny thing not disclosed that may not even bear on
the reason for triggering the policy and you are asking for a battle.
In the case of life insurance, the survivor and beneficiary would be
confronted with that battle, thus negating the reason for buying the
policy in the first instance. And the last think I want is for
payment of the policy to be delayed as the insurance company diddles
and delays due to a failure to disclose. Who would win? Hard to say,
but the insurance company can afford to go to trial and appeal.
Also bear in mind that the insurance agent is the agent of…. The
insurance companies he represents. His legal duty is to his
principle, so naturally any disclosure to him is a disclosure to his
company, regardless of what he subsequently does or does not say to
his company.
So, what to do? Disclose or keep silent, bearing in mind that legally
there is absolutely no duty to disclose unless the questions require
doing so.
My solution. Not only disclose verbally to the agent but confirm that
disclosure in an e-mail to the agent, a casual post but including the
disclosure. Not formal, demanding to be forwarded, but casual.
Still, the agent having received it, no matter if he does or does not
tell his company, they are deemed to have notice. He may elect not to
tell the company (i.e. he wants to sell a policy and earn a
commission) or he tells and risks the company declining the insurance
(often itself a question asked – “Have you been declined or rated in
the past two years for any life insurance on your life?”
Some might say this as a horrible invasion of their privacy. I think
that is nonsense. You want insurance for a purpose and thus should do
all necessary to have the policy issued in a manner that does not
negate that very purpose for buying in it.
Now, it is a moot point but one that shall be interesting. Insurance
companies have different rates for males and females. If they insist
I be insured as a male, the rates go up. Make a big noise? Not then,
but if by some chance I get to the end of the time demanded, then
would be a nice time to sue for the difference in premiums. While
there is some interesting stuff in the Australian rules regarding
insurance and TS post-op status, none of that exists in most North
American states or provinces. The point being undecided, the courts
can make some law! Such fun….
To most issues, there are legal answers and more practical answers.
Those who stand "on their rights" will always be discovering others,
and often painfully....
Willow
JenniferFlusher
>
> I recently decided to increase my life insurance. Now legally, I am a
> woman from my birth certificate to my library card. Nor is there any
> legal reason why one might have to disclose this in an application for
> insurance if none of the medical questions address that issue. Males,
> as you know, do not live as long as females. So there are various
> issues that arise.
I don't see the issue - the insuance company never asked you for your
birth sex do why would you feel obligated to tell them? Sure the could
fight the claim - but they could ight the claim because of anything
else either.
You had SRS, the courts ordered a gender change on your various
documents - why worry about this? Has you rinsurance company tried to
deny a claim before based on this. Is there any court case precedent
in your area to worry about? If not, then why worry about somehting
that is a non-issue?
Unliss of course you're Thomas "Jennifer" Usher - then I could
understand about disclosing...well actually you wouldn't have to
disclose even then would you ? I mean it would be obvious , right?
Jennifer Usher
"JenniferFlusher" <jflu...@imanman.com> wrote in message
news:hdv8s5$dg0$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> I don't see the issue - the insuance company never asked you for your
> birth sex do why would you feel obligated to tell them? Sure the could
> fight the claim - but they could ight the claim because of anything else
> either.
Because he is an idiot.
> You had SRS, the courts ordered a gender change on your various
> ocuments - why worry about this? Has you rinsurance company tried to
> deny a claim before based on this. Is there any court case precedent in
> your area to worry about? If not, then why worry about somehting that is
> a non-issue?
Because, he is trying to troll the insurance company.
> Unliss of course you're Thomas "Jennifer" Usher - then I could understand
> about disclosing...well actually you wouldn't have to disclose even then
> would you ? I mean it would be obvious , right?
No, what is obvious is that is an idiot troll.
A lame attempt, really, but you can't expect much better from a luser like
Goat Boy. He no doubt thinks I will assume it is Ruby, and that I might
even kill file Ruby (I will kill file this idiot of course) but Ruby does
not use a Mac. Only one of the idiot trolls uses a Mac. And that, of
course, is Goat Boy. Of course, that delusional lagomorph wannabe probably
thinks he has pulled off a major coup because he managed to get a message
past my kill files. Small victories for small minds.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:c9bc45f1-b193-4282...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Oh joy! The postman just brought our new Winter boots - Merrill
> Tibetan Spirit Highs. Thank you Internet!
Silly....
> And now....
> A strange little issue which is one of the small problems associated
> with being a post-op transsexual.
No, this is a problem associated with being an idiot with too much time on
his hands.
> I recently decided to increase my life insurance. Now legally, I am a
> woman from my birth certificate to my library card. Nor is there any
> legal reason why one might have to disclose this in an application for
> insurance if none of the medical questions address that issue. Males,
> as you know, do not live as long as females. So there are various
> issues that arise.
No, legally he might be considered a female. Being a woman is a social
thing. Only someone who is not accepted as a woman would feel the need to
use such language.
> But, and this is a very large but, anyone with half a brain knows that
> insurance companies will look for any excuse to avoid playing out on a
> policy. Ask the Katerina survivors or those with medical insurance
> claims. One little tiny thing not disclosed that may not even bear on
> the reason for triggering the policy and you are asking for a battle.
> In the case of life insurance, the survivor and beneficiary would be
> confronted with that battle, thus negating the reason for buying the
> policy in the first instance. And the last think I want is for
> payment of the policy to be delayed as the insurance company diddles
> and delays due to a failure to disclose. Who would win? Hard to say,
> but the insurance company can afford to go to trial and appeal.
Well, there are several factors that would need to be considered in a
situation such as this. First off, what are the chances that Willy Boy can
remotely afford enough life insurance for this to make any real difference.
Most claims are quickly paid and forgotten. The only time insurance
companies do otherwise is if there is something questionable about the death
(suicide...murder...other indications of possible fraud, like the person
possibly not being actually dead) or if the policy is extremely large. So,
the chances of any questions being raised would normally be nonexistent.
Another factor, which I would imagine also exists in Canada would be that
after a period of time (usually two years) the policy cannot be contested.
Unless Willy Boy is not long for this world, it is not a particularly
pertinent isssue.
And finally, of course, this is the sort of thing that only an idiot troll
like Willy Boy can think up. He is, as I pointed out, trolling the
insurance company. So much for his claims of having "moved on." No, this
is not a post-op issue. This is a "transgender, hey look at me, I'm really
a man, and I want everyone to pay attention me" issue.
> Also bear in mind that the insurance agent is the agent of�. The
> insurance companies he represents. His legal duty is to his
> principle, so naturally any disclosure to him is a disclosure to his
> company, regardless of what he subsequently does or does not say to
> his company.
> So, what to do? Disclose or keep silent, bearing in mind that legally
> there is absolutely no duty to disclose unless the questions require
> doing so.
In another words, not disclosing would be boring and would not provide that
shock value. Of course, one other factor. Unless the agent never meets
Willy Boy, there is nothing to disclose. While filling out the forms, he
would simply assume that Willy Boy is a man, with a taste for crossdressing,
and put him down as male. End of story, unless Willy Boy discloses, and
makes a fuss.
> My solution. Not only disclose verbally to the agent but confirm that
> disclosure in an e-mail to the agent, a casual post but including the
> disclosure. Not formal, demanding to be forwarded, but casual.
> Still, the agent having received it, no matter if he does or does not
> tell his company, they are deemed to have notice. He may elect not to
> tell the company (i.e. he wants to sell a policy and earn a
> commission) or he tells and risks the company declining the insurance
> (often itself a question asked � �Have you been declined or rated in
> the past two years for any life insurance on your life?�
I suspect that this whole post is a load of crap that he dreamed up after
the insurance agent took one look at him, insisted that he be listed as a
man, and they went three rounds over with Willy Boy waving his birth
certificate in the poor man's face. So, he makes us this story.
> Some might say this as a horrible invasion of their privacy. I think
> that is nonsense. You want insurance for a purpose and thus should do
> all necessary to have the policy issued in a manner that does not
> negate that very purpose for buying in it.
Of course, he doesn't think it an invasion. A true transsexual would simply
fill out the form, being truthful, and be done with it. Most would never
give it a second thought. My insurance is through my work, and this issue
never even came up.
> Now, it is a moot point but one that shall be interesting. Insurance
> companies have different rates for males and females. If they insist
> I be insured as a male, the rates go up. Make a big noise? Not then,
> but if by some chance I get to the end of the time demanded, then
> would be a nice time to sue for the difference in premiums. While
> there is some interesting stuff in the Australian rules regarding
> insurance and TS post-op status, none of that exists in most North
> American states or provinces. The point being undecided, the courts
> can make some law! Such fun�.
Again, someone who has actuallly moved on would never seek such "fun."
Willy Boy simply shows himself to be a idiot, a troll, and an idiot troll.
> To most issues, there are legal answers and more practical answers.
> Those who stand "on their rights" will always be discovering others,
> and often painfully....
I have to give Willy Boy credit. This time he has outdone himself for true
stupidity.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
...and a lack of knowledge concerning insurance companies...
My objective is to have funds available to Sonia should I pass on, not
to have a great legal battle.
Insurance companies do not investigate applications. They investigate
claims. They look for any small discrepancy in an application - as
anyone who follows the current US debate on health care well knows. A
simple omission, a misstatement, anything. They find that, they can
deny the claim forcing the person to courts to try to recover. And in
courts, insurance companies have deep pockets and lots of time. Your
beneficiary does not.
So, I would expect an insurance company to investigate if I passed
on. Easy enough to determine that a new birth certificate was issued
and gender changed. I ticked off "Woman" when completing the
application. They would use that as a means of attack and denial,
regardless of the right or wrong. After all, they rely upon the
odds. If they deny the claim, chances are the person who was to
receive the money cannot pay legal types to go to court.
So, the way to avoid that problem is simple. Regardless of the law,
disclose even if not necessary on first look. Why? So that the
insurance company cannot dodge behind that issue if a claim is made.
If that is done, and documented, they cannot use that reaosn to deny
the claim and delay matters.
A foolish person, one who cares more about themsleves than their
beneficiary, would not make the disclosure and hide behind the statute
allowing changes in gender. But the law is unclear as to the full
effect of most such legislation. In Australia, they specifically
mention and deal with actuarial issues. That is the only state to do
so.
It depends on your goal. If your goal is to get funds to your
beneficiary, you do as I did. If your goal is to display your own ego
and such, you do as Usher would do. Simple.
The issue does not come up when you apply, only when a claim is made.
And as is the case with most insurance of this type, there is no
direct meeting nor photo demanded - how silly.
As to "contesting the policy" , legally that is not an issue. Again,
look to heath insurance in the US. Claims denied as no disclosure of
a yeast infection, etc. Such denials are based on what is to the
insurance company simply fraud in failing to disclose, and there is no
time limit on the use of that issue. Say you say you do not smoke to
take advantage of lower rates. You pay premiums for ten years, then
die from any cause. The insurance claims investigator finds out that
you did stop smoking, but not until well after the policy was issued
to you. Claim denied. Simple. They do not even have to refund the
premiums paid.
What is nice about Usher is that Usher is so stupid and has knee jerk
reaction to any post from me. She shoots herself in the foot every
time, trying so hard to find the other side of any issue. That is
Usher's problem - don't make it yours. Think.
Willow
JenniferFlusher
> Another example of stupidity...\\
>
> ...and a lack of knowledge concerning insurance companies...
I wonder if Usher is biting his nail at work today wondering whether to
use his "Ruby" sockpuppet to answer you. I hope that he does. We
already sent a note to his Supes this week telling them he's been a bad
boy again. Nect time he uses "Ruby" his I.T. Department might be
paying a little visit LMAO
> You pay premiums for ten years, then
> die from any cause. The insurance claims investigator finds out that
> you did stop smoking, but not until well after the policy was issued
> to you. Claim denied. Simple. They do not even have to refund the
> premiums paid.
That's all hypothetical unless you;re aware of cases in Canada where
Transexuals have been denied their claim .
Unless the insurance company asks you if you had a sex change , the
only reason to for a transexual to disclose his or her status is if he
wants to disclose for some reason.
Ruby
Diane Lask wrote:
> On 2009-11-20 07:41:19 -0800, Willow <pang...@telus.net> said:
>
>> Another example of stupidity...\\
>>
>> ...and a lack of knowledge concerning insurance companies...
>
> I wonder if Usher is biting his nail at work today wondering whether
> to use his "Ruby" sockpuppet to answer you. I hope that he does. We
> already sent a note to his Supes this week telling them he's been a
> bad boy again. Nect time he uses "Ruby" his I.T. Department might be
> paying a little visit LMAO
Hey Diane, How's it hanging. Are you still sticking with that story of a
"botched srs"?
You should remember Dennis. He remembers you and I read some of your
messages here to him. He just kind of chuckled and said he wasn't surprised.
If you strain a little you should be able to put things together and figure
out who I am. I'm certainly not Jennifers "sockpuppet", whatever that is.
Still wearing those panty liners all the time to help keep that little thing
tucked? LOL
Ruby
Willow
> That's all hypothetical unless you;re aware of cases in Canada where
> Transexuals have been denied their claim .
Yes, it is, but the Nixon case caused enough of a mess to make that a
real concern. There is no case on point, making caution very
necessary.
> Unless the insurance company asks you if you had a sex change , the
> only reason to for a transexual to disclose his or her status is if he
> wants to disclose for some reason.
Sorry, you miss the point. It is not really the sex change. Rather,
it is ticking off the box as to sex - as female. Given the hazy
nature of the current law, it is indeed open to the insurance company
to deny a claim on the basis that regardless of the law permitting
change of sex on birth certificates, the does not change the
biological sex for actuarial purposes. I am not saying they are
right. I am saying that any insurance company will investigate any
claim and deny it given the slightest opportunity. In this case, they
would take the position that the applicant failed to disclose the
birth sex, and that is what determines the rate (i.e. male vs. female
rates). Instead of getting the insurance money, your beneficiary gets
a denial and has to head to court. that is not the result that I
want.
Now, I also believe that the insurance company is wrong
scientifically. Hormone treatment reduces our risk of heart attack
and stroke. It also means we must be cautious of breast cancer, not
prostate cancer. In fact, we do change and become less open to male-
type risks.
Certainly it is your choice. Your own ego or benefit to your survivor
- that is the real issue. (Stating that the issue did not come up
when you applied for insurance is obviously a silly statement. The
insurance company wants the premiums. The investigation always comes
when a claim is made. One of my friends had a son who died literally
the day after the insurance became effective. It was a group policy,
no medical necessary but certain questions. Death occurred as a
result of an unknown issue, a weakness in the blood vessels or
annurism. It was an uphill battle.
Willow
JenniferFlusher
>
> Yes, it is, but the Nixon case caused enough of a mess to make that a
> real concern. There is no case on point, making caution very
> necessary.
Exactly, there is no current problem with transexuals being denied life
insurance claims. The nixon case was something completely different
and had nothing to do with insurance at all so why mention it?
> Certainly it is your choice. Your own ego or benefit to your survivor
> - that is the real issue.
But it's not.
Presumably you are not the only transexual in Canada who has ever
bought insurance. I'd enture to say that there are thousands, perhaps
tens of thousands in the same boat. Yet we have heard of no problems
to date . Why? I would benture to guess because there is no problem.
Ego vs. concern ? Hardly. One could easily make the observation that
it takes a certain type of ego to desire to flaunt ones transexual
status all the time - such as Tom Usher is wont to do.
If you feel the necessity to do so then by all means do so! But since
there hasn't been a problem , or an the slightest indication from
insurance companies that there is a problem with it - then I really do
not see the issue.
Jennifer Usher
> Another example of stupidity...\\
>
> ...and a lack of knowledge concerning insurance companies...
Yes, that pretty much sums up what Willy Boy has posted....
> My objective is to have funds available to Sonia should I pass on, not
> to have a great legal battle.
ROTFL!
> Insurance companies do not investigate applications. They investigate
> claims. They look for any small discrepancy in an application - as
> anyone who follows the current US debate on health care well knows. A
> simple omission, a misstatement, anything. They find that, they can
> deny the claim forcing the person to courts to try to recover. And in
> courts, insurance companies have deep pockets and lots of time. Your
> beneficiary does not.
This, of course, is complete bunk. Most life insurance claims are quickly
paid. They are certainly not going to spend more money fighting a claim
than they would pay out, and I doubt anyone seriously believes that someone
receiving welfare payments for disability is going to be able to afford any
significant amount of insurance.
> So, I would expect an insurance company to investigate if I passed
> on. Easy enough to determine that a new birth certificate was issued
> and gender changed. I ticked off "Woman" when completing the
> application. They would use that as a means of attack and denial,
> regardless of the right or wrong. After all, they rely upon the
> odds. If they deny the claim, chances are the person who was to
> receive the money cannot pay legal types to go to court.
Willy Boy is a legend in his own mind. No, they would simply issue the
check as soon as they receive a death certificate. The only reason they
would have to investigate is if there is some evidence of actual
fraud...like some question as to whether or not someone is actually dead, or
if there is some indication of foul play. In such a case, there is no need
to mount a legal challenge and burn up money to avoid paying out less money.
Again, as has happened so many times, Willy Boy shows such an appalling
ignorance of legal matters that it seems incredible that he was ever allowed
to practice law. Again, there is a thing, required by law, called an
incontestability clause. What that means is very simple, after a set,
maximum period of time, usually two or three years, and insurance company
cannot raise issues involving a misstatement of fact on the application.
Lie about smoking, or your health, or any of any number of other factors,
and it becomes moot. It is a matter of statutory law, and yes, it exists in
Canada (I looked it up).
Oh, and I know. About 33 years ago, I spent a period working as an
insurance agent. You have to learn this stuff. I hated the work, and did
not stay with it long, choosing instead to return to college. But I did
learn a few things.
> What is nice about Usher is that Usher is so stupid and has knee jerk
> reaction to any post from me. She shoots herself in the foot every
> time, trying so hard to find the other side of any issue. That is
> Usher's problem - don't make it yours. Think.
Nope. I just enjoy watching Willy Boy make a fool out of himself.
I mean, in this case he has created an issue where none exists, made an
excuse to make a mountain out of a molehill, and has shown that, in spite of
all previous claims, he has not moved on.
If you care enough to actually worry about this, do a Google for
"incontestability clause." Otherwise, believe what you want. I know what
is correct and it is not Willy Boy.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
"Ruby" <ru...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:he6uvv$7nh$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> Diane Lask wrote:
>> On 2009-11-20 07:41:19 -0800, Willow <pang...@telus.net> said:
>>
>>> Another example of stupidity...\\
>>>
>>> ...and a lack of knowledge concerning insurance companies...
>>
>> I wonder if Usher is biting his nail at work today wondering whether
>> to use his "Ruby" sockpuppet to answer you. I hope that he does. We
>> already sent a note to his Supes this week telling them he's been a
>> bad boy again. Nect time he uses "Ruby" his I.T. Department might be
>> paying a little visit LMAO
>
> Hey Diane, How's it hanging. Are you still sticking with that story of a
> "botched srs"?
I doubt this was Diane Lask, but is the other idiot troll, Goat Boy, the
wabbit wannabe. He likes to imagine that you are me. Don't ask me why, but
if he is telling the truth, the I.T. department is having a good laugh.
> You should remember Dennis. He remembers you and I read some of your
> messages here to him. He just kind of chuckled and said he wasn't
> surprised. If you strain a little you should be able to put things
> together and figure out who I am. I'm certainly not Jennifers
> "sockpuppet", whatever that is.
No, the person you are dealing with here has never had surgery, and has no
plans to. He likes his penis, and doesn't think he needs to lose it. I
figured out who you were a while back. Good to see you back.
> Still wearing those panty liners all the time to help keep that little
> thing tucked? LOL
Do tell?
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
> On Nov 20, 12:07 pm, JenniferFlusher <jflus...@imaman.org> wrote:
>> That's all hypothetical unless you;re aware of cases in Canada where
>> Transexuals have been denied their claim .
> Yes, it is, but the Nixon case caused enough of a mess to make that a
> real concern. There is no case on point, making caution very
> necessary.
Now, this is just silly. The Nixon case has nothing to do with an issue
like this.
>> Unless the insurance company asks you if you had a sex change , the
>> only reason to for a transexual to disclose his or her status is if he
>> wants to disclose for some reason.
> Sorry, you miss the point. It is not really the sex change. Rather,
> it is ticking off the box as to sex - as female. Given the hazy
> nature of the current law, it is indeed open to the insurance company
> to deny a claim on the basis that regardless of the law permitting
> change of sex on birth certificates, the does not change the
> biological sex for actuarial purposes. I am not saying they are
> right. I am saying that any insurance company will investigate any
> claim and deny it given the slightest opportunity. In this case, they
> would take the position that the applicant failed to disclose the
> birth sex, and that is what determines the rate (i.e. male vs. female
> rates). Instead of getting the insurance money, your beneficiary gets
> a denial and has to head to court. that is not the result that I
> want.
Again, this MIGHT occur if the insurance has a) not been in force long
enough for the incontestibility clause to have taken effect (i.e. less than
two or three years) AND the amount of money involved is large enough to make
it worthwhile (not an issue in Willy Boy's case).
> Now, I also believe that the insurance company is wrong
> scientifically. Hormone treatment reduces our risk of heart attack
> and stroke. It also means we must be cautious of breast cancer, not
> prostate cancer. In fact, we do change and become less open to male-
> type risks.
Actually, hormone treatment increases the risk of heart attack and stroke,
just as it does in a biological female. Breast cancer can be issue, but
granted, prostate cancer becomes a none issue.
> Certainly it is your choice. Your own ego or benefit to your survivor
> - that is the real issue. (Stating that the issue did not come up
> when you applied for insurance is obviously a silly statement. The
> insurance company wants the premiums. The investigation always comes
> when a claim is made. One of my friends had a son who died literally
> the day after the insurance became effective. It was a group policy,
> no medical necessary but certain questions. Death occurred as a
> result of an unknown issue, a weakness in the blood vessels or
> annurism. It was an uphill battle.
In such a case, where there is a sudden death immediately when a policy
comes into force, there might be some questions. This would of course, be
far too early for the policy to be incontestable, and the insurance company
would want to make sure that the death was not the result of foul play, but
they would then pay out. I mean, think about it. If insurance companies
failed to pay on any significant number of policies, especially for silly
reasons like Willy Boy suggests, no one would bother taking out a policy.
Willy Boy creates stuff where nothing exists.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
very bad thing....
"incontestability clause - A provision in a life insurance policy that
prevents the insurer from revoking coverage because of alleged
misstatements by the insured after a specified period, usually about
two years. Of course, this is not a license to commit fraud, and the
discovery of fraud will lead the company to contest any claims and
possibly pursue criminal charges."
Note the exception. That gives the insurance company more than enough
rope.
Then " I'd venture to say that there are thousands, perhaps
tens of thousands in the same boat. Yet we have heard of no problems
if they wish to use it.
to date . Why? I would venture to guess because there is no
problem."
Tens of thousands in Canada? I think not. Not heard of problems? Do
you make it a point to review monthly insurance cases? How many TS
actually try to get life insurance? How many Admittedly, a few may go
by unnoticed, but is that a risk you wish to take? Up to you, of
course. Perhaps part-time ex-insurance agent Usher will sell you a
policy?
Not pay out on a policy? Any insurance company will look for any
reason not to pay out.
Willow
Jennifer Usher
> Oh dear. As always, Usher demonstrates that a little knowledge is a
> very bad thing....
Well, yes, I have demonstrated that Willy Boy's "little knowledge" is pretty
dangerous.
> "incontestability clause - A provision in a life insurance policy that
> prevents the insurer from revoking coverage because of alleged
> misstatements by the insured after a specified period, usually about
> two years. Of course, this is not a license to commit fraud, and the
> discovery of fraud will lead the company to contest any claims and
> possibly pursue criminal charges."
>
> Note the exception. That gives the insurance company more than enough
> rope.
ROTFLMAO! Oh my, our supposed attorney actually thinks a comment in a
definition on a web site constitutes an actual statement of law. I found
that definition while researching the issue, and went on to more accurate
websites. That is not an "exception." It is a comment. It doesn't give
the insurance companies any "rope" at all. I mean really, just how low are
the standards to be a lawyer in Canada?
> Then " I'd venture to say that there are thousands, perhaps
> tens of thousands in the same boat. Yet we have heard of no problems
> if they wish to use it.
> to date . Why? I would venture to guess because there is no
> problem."
>
> Tens of thousands in Canada? I think not. Not heard of problems? Do
> you make it a point to review monthly insurance cases? How many TS
> actually try to get life insurance? How many Admittedly, a few may go
> by unnoticed, but is that a risk you wish to take? Up to you, of
> course. Perhaps part-time ex-insurance agent Usher will sell you a
> policy?
Now, this is the sort of idiocy that we have come to expect from Willy Boy.
Of course, in Willy World, transsexuals would not usually buy insurance,
because he thinks they all live horrible lives, cowering in the shadows.
The idea that they might engage in something decent folk would do, like buy
insurance, is beyond him But, of course, he is special. If such a case
occured, it would likely draw attention. No, Willy Boy has to make a
mountain out of a mole hill, because he no longer gets the attention he
craves.
No, I was hardly "part time." A job I took over 30 years ago. I didn't
care for the work, and quit after a few months. But I did have to study
for, and pass a licensing exam.
> Not pay out on a policy? Any insurance company will look for any
> reason not to pay out.
Willy Boy seems to have a streak of paranoia. Or maybe he is used to being
caught making false claims. Who knows? Again, after two years, maybe
three, insurance companies find it very hard to not pay out.
But hey, what Willy Boy wants to do is up to him. No one is forcing him to
do anything. But, he is sure determined to pressure people to follow his
example and out themselves.
Typical.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/1008
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reassigning+coverage-a0110076622
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/976305/posts
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS-III.html#anchor3700
(Bureaucratic Hurdles to Overcome)
No problem? Balderdash...
W.
Jennifer Usher
Thirteen years ago. Hardly current.
A situation dealing with someone who bought a policy as a male, and who has
undergone transition. Not even remotely relevant to the discussion at hand.
> http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Reassigning+coverage-a0110076622
Now, this one is slightly relevant, but only in a way that is negative to
Willy Boy's claims. This person was applying for a relatively large policy
(a half a million dollars) in which case any insurance company is going to
require things like a medical exam, and a complete background check. They
denied the policy on the basis of mental issues. Given that this person was
clearly an "out, loud, and proud" transgender activist, that would probably
be a reasonable conclusion on the part of the insurance company. Now, if
Willy Boy wants us to believe that he can afford $500,000 in life insurance,
at his age, he is really full of it.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/976305/posts
The same as the previous story, just more detail. Again, a very large
policy where anyone would encounter more scrutiny. Not really an issue for
most of us, who don't have $3000 a month to blow on just premiums for
insurance. And given the person's history, I would say the insurance
company has a legitimate basis to deny coverage for mental health reasons.
Keep in mind, we are clearly talking about a difference between what most
everyone here would face, buying a simple life insurance policy, and this
example, which involves rather large premiums, and a large policy.
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TS-III.html#anchor3700
> (Bureaucratic Hurdles to Overcome)
And this one does not even remotely make sense. It makes passing reference
to insurance being one thing that has to be updated, nothing more.
> No problem? Balderdash...
Willy Boy is just too easy. He has failed, again, to actually make his
case. Again, this is simply evidence that he is unable to move on. He
lives in a fantasy world, where such a situation would be an issue, though
in reality the agent would know from the moment of meeting Willy Boy that he
was born a male. Besides, it is well known that Willy Boy is locally known
as a transsexual. Unless the agent is from out of the region, it is not
even an issue at all.
I suspect Willy Boy made the whole story up in an attempt to look like
something he is not.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
those who will not hear.
W.
Jennifer Usher
> There are none so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as
> those who will not hear.
And then there is Willy Boy, who is invincibly ignorant.
--
Jennifer Usher
fluffybunnie
>
> No, the person you are dealing with here has never had surgery, and has no
> plans to. He likes his penis, and doesn't think he needs to lose it.
>
Said the freakishly fat man pretending to be a transsexual on usenet...
--
(\__/)
(=^.^=)
(")_(")
Willow
Willow
Jennifer Usher
> Suffice to say, all has now been successfully concluded.
Translation: Willy Boy bought his small pittance of insurance and got to
make a big deal out of having had a sex change (really, something of a
misnomer in his case) and that just makes him happy as a clam.
Or to put in simpler terms...<YAWN>
--
Jennifer Usher
sillyputty
> What is nice about Usher is that Usher is so stupid and has knee jerk
> reaction to any post from me. She shoots herself in the foot every
> time, trying so hard to find the other side of any issue. That is
> Usher's problem - don't make it yours. Think.
I'm not sure what Usher's problem is. My guess is she needs to see a
therapist to determine why she insists on continuing to respond, year
after year, to you. Not that you didn't continue to stir the pot by
responding to her, but it seems you've taken the reasonable side,
while she continues with insults and referring to you as 'male.'
I do remember when Usher first started posting in this group, before
it became defunct and before you began posting. She came in with a
chip on her shoulder, picking a fight with anyone who disagreed with
her and calling them a 'bigot.' She calls you a 'troll', but needs to
look in a mirror. One definition of a troll is, like you said, a
person who replies to someone just for the sake of replying.
My advice to Usher: get a life. If she has that much free time to
continually post nonsense in this group it would be better spent doing
something positive.
Jennifer Usher
"sillyputty" <karmic...@2die4.com> wrote in message
news:6e9acb2c-4e53-49b7...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> I'm not sure what Usher's problem is. My guess is she needs to see a
> therapist to determine why she insists on continuing to respond, year
> after year, to you. Not that you didn't continue to stir the pot by
> responding to her, but it seems you've taken the reasonable side,
> while she continues with insults and referring to you as 'male.'
Quite frankly, I have no problem at all. I don't "insist" on continuing to
respond to Willy Boy. I choose to do so. A similar question might be, "Why
does Willy Boy insist on posting here?" And let's be clear on how things
work. I don't instigate this crap. Yes, I respond to this idiot, but if he
does not post or he is not brought up by someone else, I don't mention him.
And nine times out of ten, when he does post, it is an attack on me. So, I
don't start this crap at all.
Now, the specific question is "Why?" Mainly because I realized a long time
ago that what Willy Boy so obsessively craves is the opportunity to post
without challenge. And I simply deny him that. This is his last refuge.
He is not allowed to post among decent folk. He has been kicked out of
numerous mailing lists, including one of his own creation (he violated
Yahoo's terms of service and then bragged about it here) which resulted in
his being banned from there. The only reason he posts here is because he
cannot be banned.
> I do remember when Usher first started posting in this group, before
> it became defunct and before you began posting. She came in with a
> chip on her shoulder, picking a fight with anyone who disagreed with
> her and calling them a 'bigot.' She calls you a 'troll', but needs to
> look in a mirror. One definition of a troll is, like you said, a
> person who replies to someone just for the sake of replying.
Sorry, but no. I came in here and was promptly attacked by Diane Lask and
some others. I didn't pick fights. I was set upon, as was almost anyone
else who posted here. No, Willy Boy is a troll as he deliberately seeks to
provoke flames. And no, I don't reply simply for the sake of replying.
Shoot, I even ignore Willy Boy on occasion.
> My advice to Usher: get a life. If she has that much free time to
> continually post nonsense in this group it would be better spent doing
> something positive.
This place takes up very little of my time. No, I actually do have a
life....and a job, and friends, and all the other things that Willy Boy can
only dream of having.
--
Jennifer Usher
JenniferFlusher
> My advice to Usher: get a life. If she has that much free time to
> continually post nonsense in this group it would be better spent doing
> something positive.
But Usher HAS a life - don't you know?
He lives it at the Mission Hotel in San Francisco - a Single Room
Occupancy unit funded by City and state taxpayers for the indigent. He
pays only a third of the rent for a 9x9 space and a community bathroom.
His life is monitored by his own private case worker and he is given a
low wage state job to pay his rent.
That's his life. Google up "mission hotel" in S.F. . You'll find
it's populated primarily by drug addicts and mentally incompetant
people living on various programs. Usher lives there. So do his
actions really surprise you.
By the way , if you are wondering how someone in a program like that
could afford SRS , let alone be approved for it - you're not alone.
Mst of us believe tha Usher, like his friend Sue Ann - only claims to
have had SRS but never really had it at all.
sillyputty
> Quite frankly, I have no problem at all. I don't "insist" on continuing to
> respond to Willy Boy. I choose to do so. A similar question might be, "Why
> does Willy Boy insist on posting here?"
> And let's be clear on how things
> work. I don't instigate this crap. Yes, I respond to this idiot,
An insult. Willow is not an idiot. Mentally unstable, maybe. But not
an idiot.
As for being clear, you and Willow battled for years. And let's be
real: you responded just for the sake of responding. All you had to do
was stop (as you did once and the battle died).
> but if he
> does not post or he is not brought up by someone else, I don't mention him.
Sounds like an obsession to me. Why don't you just drop it instead of
playing 'online cop.'
> And nine times out of ten, when he does post, it is an attack on me.
Where was the attack on you in the post that started this thread? And
even if it was, why continue fighting like two kids on a playground?
> Now, the specific question is "Why?" Mainly because I realized a long time
> ago that what Willy Boy so obsessively craves is the opportunity to post
> without challenge.
Come on. This forum has been defunct for years. The majority of the
posts are from you, Willow, trolls and spammers.
> Sorry, but no. I came in here and was promptly attacked by Diane Lask and
> some others. I didn't pick fights. I was set upon, as was almost anyone
> else who posted here.
Why wasn't I 'set upon'? And I do remember you attacked people just
for disagreeing.
> This place takes up very little of my time. No, I actually do have a
> life....and a job, and friends, and all the other things that Willy Boy can
> only dream of having.
Another insult. You don't know about her personal life, do you?
Jennifer Usher
> On Nov 26, 3:04 pm, "Jennifer Usher" <jennisu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Quite frankly, I have no problem at all. I don't "insist" on continuing
>> to
>> respond to Willy Boy. I choose to do so. A similar question might be,
>> "Why
>> does Willy Boy insist on posting here?"
> Because she has a right to, like anyone else.
Exactly, but he does not have a right to post here unchallenged.
>> And let's be clear on how things
>> work. I don't instigate this crap. Yes, I respond to this idiot,
> An insult. Willow is not an idiot. Mentally unstable, maybe. But not
> an idiot.
Yes, definitely unstable, but I would argue that he is not the brightest
bulb in the bunch either.
> As for being clear, you and Willow battled for years. And let's be
> real: you responded just for the sake of responding. All you had to do
> was stop (as you did once and the battle died).
Yes, I stopped but no, the battle did not die. Willy Boy continued to post
about me, just as he continues to bring up Sue, who has not posted here in
some time. And again, I only respond. I do not seek him out, nor do I
bring him up when he is not posting.
>> but if he
>> does not post or he is not brought up by someone else, I don't mention
>> him.
> Sounds like an obsession to me. Why don't you just drop it instead of
> playing 'online cop.'
Really? Again, if he does not post, I ignore him. He brings up people who
are not even present. Sorry, but I am not the one obsessed. He certainly
has a right to post here, but he does not have a right to do so
unchallenged.
>> And nine times out of ten, when he does post, it is an attack on me.
> Where was the attack on you in the post that started this thread? And
> even if it was, why continue fighting like two kids on a playground?
I did not say he attacks every time. In this case, he posted something, and
I commented. Obviously, I was not the only one commenting.
>> Now, the specific question is "Why?" Mainly because I realized a long
>> time
>> ago that what Willy Boy so obsessively craves is the opportunity to post
>> without challenge.
> Come on. This forum has been defunct for years. The majority of the
> posts are from you, Willow, trolls and spammers.
True. And, quite frankly, I would prefer it stay defunct. There are plenty
of places out there where one can post and receive good information. I am a
member of quite a few mailing lists that would quickly dispatch the trolls
that haunt this place.
>> Sorry, but no. I came in here and was promptly attacked by Diane Lask and
>> some others. I didn't pick fights. I was set upon, as was almost anyone
>> else who posted here.
> Why wasn't I 'set upon'? And I do remember you attacked people just
> for disagreeing.
I have no idea who you are, so it is impossible to say. Yes, I fought back,
but I do not attack people just for disagreeing. I may disagree quite
firmly, but I don't attack just for disagreement.
>> This place takes up very little of my time. No, I actually do have a
>> life....and a job, and friends, and all the other things that Willy Boy
>> can
>> only dream of having.
> Another insult. You don't know about her personal life, do you?
I know more about his personal life than he does about mine. That, or he
deliberately lies about me. I suspect the latter is more true than he would
ever wish to admit.
Quite frankly, there is a lot here you may actually not be aware of, like
the attempts he has made to cause me actual harm in the real world.
Attempts to have me fired, that sort of thing. Perhaps if he had not
attempted such things (he has a rather extensive history of such behavior
against a number of people) I might have well ignored him long ago.
--
Jennifer Usher
JenniferFlusher
>
>> This place takes up very little of my time. �No, I actually do have a
>> life....and a job, and friends, and all the other things that Willy Boy c
> an
>> only dream of having.
>
> Another insult. You don't know about her personal life, do you?
It's an insult born or jealousy.
Willow has a long term life partner.
Usher has not even a long term friend. Not a one.
Willow went to college, has had a professional career.
Usher has - possibly - completed high school and has never held a
steady job. He functions now as a low paid clerical worker who's job
was given him on a workfare grant.
Willow has a house that she owns.
Usher lives in a a funded homeless facility.
Usher can't even afford a car. He can't afford his own apartment. His
only peers are (quite literally) the drug abusers and mentally
incompetent who live in the same facility as him.
He's merely jealous of what other's have.
Willow
> I'm not sure what Usher's problem is. <snip>
Well stated.
Usher is our local pit bull - with or without lipstick. Unhappily,
Usher does have a very large chip and it shows with each and every
post.
Some people are like that. Happily, we need only meet Usher on line,
not in person.
Willow
Jennifer Usher
> On Nov 26, 1:59 pm, sillyputty <karmictara...@2die4.com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure what Usher's problem is. <snip>
> Well stated.
ROTFL! Well, given that sillyputty also acknowledged that Willy Boy is
mentally unstable I agree somewhat.
> Usher is our local pit bull - with or without lipstick. Unhappily,
> Usher does have a very large chip and it shows with each and every
> post.
While I am flattered by the comparison to Gov. Palin, the claim about me
having a chip on my shoulder is bogus. I am not the one keeping this going.
> Some people are like that. Happily, we need only meet Usher on line,
> not in person.
Well, IF Willy Boy ever made the mistake of crossing my path, the worst that
would happen to him is possibly being arrested for carrying his stalking
into the real world. But we long ago established that he is not allowed to
enter the United States, so I doubt that will happen. I have no desire to
spend time among the Canadian rednecks up where he lives.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
intended as a compliment. Just another fundie...
Willow
fluffybunnie
>
> While I am flattered by the comparison to Gov. Palin
>
ROFLMAO -- wow, conflating the referenced remark to a Palin
comparison... Now *that* is a perfect picture of Lardo's
desperation. I'm quite sure the only things Palin and Lardo
actually have in common is the fact that they are both utterly
stupid as well as delusional.
BTW Lardo, the "lipstick on a pig" remark predates Palin by at
least a century...
> the claim about me
> having a chip on my shoulder is bogus. I am not the one keeping
> this going.
>
Anyone who can read would have to disagree, welfare man.
Jennifer Usher
> Comparison to a certain ex-poliotican from Alaska was certainly not
> intended as a compliment. Just another fundie...
And once again, Willy Boy shows himself to be a classic bigot. And he is
clueless if he thinks that Palin is an "ex-politician." She is making a
very interesting comeback.
Personally, I find many political positions where I disagree with her. But,
that aside, she is a very likeable person, who could potentially give the
Democrats nightmares.
--
Jennifer Usher
Willow
> Personally, I find many political positions where I disagree with her. But,
> that aside, she is a very likeable person, who could potentially give the
> Democrats nightmares.
She is an idiot.
Fundies around the world are the cause of much of the world's misery.
Be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist - heck even scientologists. By
definition, a fundamentalist "knows" the answers (remind anyone here
of anyone here?). They specialize in knowing what no one can really
know - the true way to god, the true way to transition, and so forth.
Most, if not all, are clueless people who have limited self-esteem.
Most have little success in their lives, unless they happen to be TV
preachers or such. As to Palin being "likeable", news from Alaska
concerning Troopergate and more shows that this person is not such. A
nasty vengeful and bogoted type who even tried to get books taken from
the local library. Hmmmm. Well, I can see why Usher might like
her.
Willow
Jennifer Usher
> On Nov 29, 9:14 am, "Jennifer Usher" <jennisu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Personally, I find many political positions where I disagree with her.
>> But,
>> that aside, she is a very likeable person, who could potentially give the
>> Democrats nightmares.
> She is an idiot.
Says the idiot troll...
> Fundies around the world are the cause of much of the world's misery.
> Be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist - heck even scientologists. By
> definition, a fundamentalist "knows" the answers (remind anyone here
> of anyone here?). They specialize in knowing what no one can really
> know - the true way to god, the true way to transition, and so forth.
> Most, if not all, are clueless people who have limited self-esteem.
> Most have little success in their lives, unless they happen to be TV
> preachers or such. As to Palin being "likeable", news from Alaska
> concerning Troopergate and more shows that this person is not such. A
> nasty vengeful and bogoted type who even tried to get books taken from
> the local library. Hmmmm. Well, I can see why Usher might like
> her.
Well, several things are obvious, again, from the above. That Willy Boy is
a bigot is well established. Yes, the idea of "knowing" all the answers
reminds me of Willy Boy. And it is funny that Willy Boy objects to Palin
for being "vengeful and bigoted" given his history of nasty attacks on
people who disagreed with him or his heroes Blanchard or Bailey....at least
until they stopped stroking his ego. But it is also obvious that Willy Boy
does not think for himself. And that he does not keep up with the news.
Palin has done very well since the publication of her book.
Again, there is much I disagree with her on, but she is very likely to be a
much bigger factor than I previously would have imagined. And it is not so
much that I like her, as it is that I like arrogant twits of any political
stripe getting their comeuppance.
--
Jennifer Usher
fluffybunnie
> On Nov 29, 9:14?am, "Jennifer Usher" <jennisu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Personally, I find many political positions where I disagree with her. ?But,
>> that aside, she is a very likeable person, who could potentially give the
>> Democrats nightmares.
>
> She is an idiot.
>
LOL, yes she really is -- an uber-idiot even!
Check out this video, it's hilarious and grotesque
at the same time. Palin's character really come
shining through: http://tinyurl.com/5e9kyq
> Fundies around the world are the cause of much of the world's
> misery.
Indeed. I think it should be legal to hunt fundies
as long as you use them for pet food or something.
:)
Keep a cheery though...
fluffybunnie
Jennifer Usher
<FutureG...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:btlfh51h76ll0htk1...@4ax.com...
> And of course ovarian cancer and cervical and uterine cancer are not
> issues. Nor is testicular cancer. Suicide rate may be slightly higher...
> haven't seen the statistics. Or maybe not. All in all, I would think
> that post-op life expectancy would compare favorably with natal female
> life expectancy. stats, anyone?
I don't know if there have been any studies. I have heard claims that it
takes a few years off of one's life, but I have seen no evidence to prove
that.
--
Jennifer Usher
Jennifer Usher
<FutureG...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q6mfh59qh13nue30j...@4ax.com...
> That's not what they say in the commercials. :o(
As I pointed out, that is only true when the policy is very large, or there
is some serious reason to suspect fraud. If it were true, then people would
not bother buying insurance.
--
Jennifer Usher
interestingtopic
antaginiser hits again.
Willow I think you are crazy for declaring yourself as anything but female
at the end of the day if they dont pay out its discrimination. They
discriminate your family sues pretty simple
"Willow" <pang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:c9bc45f1-b193-4282...@b36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Oh joy! The postman just brought our new Winter boots - Merrill
Tibetan Spirit Highs. Thank you Internet!
And now....
A strange little issue which is one of the small problems associated
with being a post-op transsexual.
I recently decided to increase my life insurance. Now legally, I am a
woman from my birth certificate to my library card. Nor is there any
legal reason why one might have to disclose this in an application for
insurance if none of the medical questions address that issue. Males,
as you know, do not live as long as females. So there are various
issues that arise.
But, and this is a very large but, anyone with half a brain knows that
insurance companies will look for any excuse to avoid playing out on a
policy. Ask the Katerina survivors or those with medical insurance
claims. One little tiny thing not disclosed that may not even bear on
the reason for triggering the policy and you are asking for a battle.
In the case of life insurance, the survivor and beneficiary would be
confronted with that battle, thus negating the reason for buying the
policy in the first instance. And the last think I want is for
payment of the policy to be delayed as the insurance company diddles
and delays due to a failure to disclose. Who would win? Hard to say,
but the insurance company can afford to go to trial and appeal.
Also bear in mind that the insurance agent is the agent of�. The
insurance companies he represents. His legal duty is to his
principle, so naturally any disclosure to him is a disclosure to his
company, regardless of what he subsequently does or does not say to
his company.
So, what to do? Disclose or keep silent, bearing in mind that legally
there is absolutely no duty to disclose unless the questions require
doing so.
My solution. Not only disclose verbally to the agent but confirm that
disclosure in an e-mail to the agent, a casual post but including the
disclosure. Not formal, demanding to be forwarded, but casual.
Still, the agent having received it, no matter if he does or does not
tell his company, they are deemed to have notice. He may elect not to
tell the company (i.e. he wants to sell a policy and earn a
commission) or he tells and risks the company declining the insurance
(often itself a question asked � �Have you been declined or rated in
the past two years for any life insurance on your life?�
Some might say this as a horrible invasion of their privacy. I think
that is nonsense. You want insurance for a purpose and thus should do
all necessary to have the policy issued in a manner that does not
negate that very purpose for buying in it.
Now, it is a moot point but one that shall be interesting. Insurance
companies have different rates for males and females. If they insist
I be insured as a male, the rates go up. Make a big noise? Not then,
but if by some chance I get to the end of the time demanded, then
would be a nice time to sue for the difference in premiums. While
there is some interesting stuff in the Australian rules regarding
insurance and TS post-op status, none of that exists in most North
American states or provinces. The point being undecided, the courts
can make some law! Such fun�.
To most issues, there are legal answers and more practical answers.
Those who stand "on their rights" will always be discovering others,
and often painfully....
Willow
--
www.lightningnews.com Lightning fast anonymous usenet downloads for 5$ only !
Jennifer Usher
"interestingtopic" <whogive...@inyaface.com> wrote in message
news:4b19a209$0$12626$892e...@news.lightningnews.com...
> Once again a post is hijacked for the purpose of a slinging match. The
> antaginiser hits again.
>
> Willow I think you are crazy for declaring yourself as anything but female
> at the end of the day if they dont pay out its discrimination. They
> discriminate your family sues pretty simple
Well, I would agree about the crazy part.
--
Jennifer Usher