[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
underwriters do not conduct studies;
[/quote]
Yeah, they don’t pool resources and fund “Underwriter’s Laboratories” for example to figure out the premium to charge for a given risk (and what risk to take and not take) and what equipmetn is OK at a risk’s operation.
Or Baseefa, Canadian Standards, NEMKO and the rest. They don’t exist. They are not non-profits funded by insurance and industry. Nope.
And life insurance companies don’t hire actuarials. Indeed, the entire science of “Actuarial Science” is non-existant. No studies are done!
They just guess!
Seriously, you are a very smart guy on the claims side, but the top-office stuff is not your thing.[/quote]
Nice cut and paste. But I specifically rebutted your statement as written. You did not write the above. So, nice strawman of sorts.
And by the way, please post the study you referenced in your original post
By the way, the average undewriter at any insurance company will rarely, if ever, see an actual risk. Risk management MIGHT. You think an underwriter or risk manager is, for instance, visiting all the insured gyms in the US?
Better for you to rethink your grasp of the “top-office stuff”.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I was a claims professional with 23 years coverage and litigation experience and admitted in Federal Court as an expert witness.[/quote]
Great. The standard under the FRE to be an “expert” is to know something about some topic more than the average juror. Everyone is an expert about something. Go watch “My Cousin Vinny.” She was an “expert.”
You were basically an adjuster.
Which means (as you proved in your post) you know ZERO about underwriting and the evaluation of whether a client should be purchased as a risk. You were completely AFTER the fact.
And what “cut and paste” are you talking about? The fact you think what I post is not relevant shows how little you actually know about the underwriting side of the insurance business.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I was a claims professional with 23 years coverage and litigation experience and admitted in Federal Court as an expert witness.[/quote]
Great. The standard under the FRE to be an “expert” is to know something about some topic more than the average juror. Everyone is an expert about something. Go watch “My Cousin Vinny.” She was an “expert.”
You were basically an adjuster.
Which means (as you proved in your post) you know ZERO about underwriting and the evaluation of whether a client should be purchased as a risk. You were completely AFTER the fact.[/quote]
I’m arguing with a Jewish lawyer about his strawman. Go figure. And then he says dismissively to me, “you were basically an adjuster”. LOL
Then he references a movie for a spurious legal reference to support his transparent ad hominem attack.
Back to the meat. No. I was never an underwriter. And neither (to my knowledge or any claim) were you. However, putting aside your strawman for a moment, you stated in your original post (do I need to quote it back to you?) that the underwriters conducted a study of sorts that concluded something or other about shoes and injury.
Follow along with me now
I said “underwriters” conducted no such study and that I doubt such a study indeed existed.
And btw, you cannot be in an insurance management position (or claims for that matter) for as long as I and know “zero about underwriting”. However, you most certainly can be a lawyer and know zero about underwriting
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
And what “cut and paste” are you talking about? The fact you think what I post is not relevant shows how little you actually know about the underwriting side of the insurance business.[/quote]
You cut and paste only a portion of our exchange in an attempt to build a strawman of sorts. You did not quote me in complete context, or yourself for that matter. Do you want me to do it for you? I can do this all day.
I know more than you about insurance operations apparently.
Do you want to tell us about this “underwriting study” that was conducted? Or have you abandoned that in favor of referring to me dismissively as an “adjustor”? When shall I commence with the ambulance chaser references…or worse?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I said “underwriters” conducted no such study and that I doubt such a study indeed existed.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. So the underwriters hiring engineers, human factors experts (who are real experts, unlike you), etc. to do studies don’t count in your mind. The mangement must do the studies themselves. Uh, OK. I guess that is correct, in a weird sort of way.
I guess Steve Jobs (in your world) didn’t have much to do with the iPhone because he didn’t sit in China and put the phones together.
As for the study, from memory it’s “Factors and Guidelines to Fitness Center [insurance] Underwriting.” The specific injuries discussed were treadmill injuries.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I said “underwriters” conducted no such study and that I doubt such a study indeed existed.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. So the underwriters hiring engineers, human factors experts (who are real experts, unlike you), etc. to do studies don’t count in your mind. The mangement must do the studies themselves. Uh, OK. I guess that is correct, in a weird sort of way.
I guess Steve Jobs (in your world) didn’t have much to do with the iPhone because he didn’t sit in China and put the phones together.
As for the study, from memory it’s “Factors and Guidelines to Fitness Center [insurance] Underwriting.” The specific injuries discussed were treadmill injuries.[/quote]
Lemme give you a hint; you’re using “underwriter” in a VERY broad sense. An actual underwriter (who sits in a cubicle) is doing none of what you claim.
Most “safety issues” are really insurance issues. The gym could be liable if you drop a plate on your foot, and you’re not wearing shoes. If you file a complaint or lawsuit then it turns into a huge rigamarole. Easier to just tell everyone to put their shoes on. [/quote]
While true, this embodies the utter pussification of society.
If you elect to squat barefoot, and you manage to screw up so bad you drop a plate on your foot, why would you file a complaint or lawsuit against the gym? How are they to blame for your mistake or your decision to not wear shoes?
Was some kind of secret weapon unleashed 20 years ago that turned the majority of adults into whiny 6-year-olds with an “I didn’t do it! It’s not my fault!! Waaah, mommy!!!” attitude whenever anything goes wrong? What ever happened to taking some responsibility for one’s own actions?
Most “safety issues” are really insurance issues. The gym could be liable if you drop a plate on your foot, and you’re not wearing shoes. If you file a complaint or lawsuit then it turns into a huge rigamarole. Easier to just tell everyone to put their shoes on. [/quote]
While true, this embodies the utter pussification of society.
If you elect to squat barefoot, and you manage to screw up so bad you drop a plate on your foot, why would you file a complaint or lawsuit against the gym? How are they to blame for your mistake or your decision to not wear shoes?
Was some kind of secret weapon unleashed 20 years ago that turned the majority of adults into whiny 6-year-olds with an “I didn’t do it! It’s not my fault!! Waaah, mommy!!!” attitude whenever anything goes wrong? What ever happened to taking some responsibility for one’s own actions?[/quote]
When a frivolous lawsuit can bankrupt your gym…you make people follow the rules. Blame the judiciary for allowing these kinds of lawsuits to proceed.
Again folks, if you don’t like a rule…lift someplace else.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I said “underwriters” conducted no such study and that I doubt such a study indeed existed.
[/quote]
Ah, OK. So the underwriters hiring engineers, human factors experts (who are real experts, unlike you), etc. to do studies don’t count in your mind. The mangement must do the studies themselves. Uh, OK. I guess that is correct, in a weird sort of way.
I guess Steve Jobs (in your world) didn’t have much to do with the iPhone because he didn’t sit in China and put the phones together.
As for the study, from memory it’s “Factors and Guidelines to Fitness Center [insurance] Underwriting.” The specific injuries discussed were treadmill injuries.[/quote]
Lemme give you a hint; you’re using “underwriter” in a VERY broad sense. An actual underwriter (who sits in a cubicle) is doing none of what you claim. [/quote]
And there is the rub; you are using the word “underwriter” in a VERY narrow sense, in accordance with your world of experience in the insurance industry.
Of course the drones who sit in cubicals checking boxes on charts are not the “world” of underwriting. They have bosses. And people who figure out what is a good risk and a bad risk by figuring out the factors — one of which is “does the gym have a written policy Y/N” “Does it cover “shoes, shirts, collars on weights” etc? Y/N”
Actual thinking people create the checklist for said drones for follow, just like Steve Jobs and a world of engineers created blue prints for drones to make iPhones.
It is with the “thinking people” that I have my experence.
Did that really need a j/k or are you just getting slow , old man?[/quote]
No, I’m just sitting here reading a book titled, “How to Beat Your Kid Just Short of Killing Him”. It’s illustrated and everything. [/quote]
I thought your kids were past the beatin age.? [/quote]
No, they’re never too old to beat.
Besides, I’m renting myself out to other parents with younger kids who don’t have the stomach to beat 'em as hard and as long as I will. It’s just a part time job for now but who knows???[/quote]
In this day and age, a second income stream is nothing to scoff at.
