Hi all. I just received word from one of the numerous Insurance Companies we write for.

Many of you may not know it....BUT your credit is NOW being used to determine how much you pay for auto/home Insurance.

My question, (and as an Insurance Agent I am pissed and dont think this is fair AT ALL) how do you all feel bout this subject?

At the point we are at now, many with poor credit do not qualify for Renter's Insurance. One company is completely going thru each renewal and checking credit, IF it is NOT superior people are being non-renewed and MADE to pay higher premium. This Is BS.

Your thoughts? Questions? I personally wish someone would sue the shit out of the Industry.

PS, credit scoring (as they call it) is done over the internet.

www.choicepoint.com

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 24, 2001

Answers

sumer

Even if you've paid all your premiums on time and haven't had a claim in recent years?

If so, I can smell a class-action soon brewing bigtime.....

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 24, 2001.

Sumer, you work for a sheister. Find a new job, even if you have to sling fries at McDonald's.

-- (don't @ support. crooks), April 24, 2001.

Someone needs to let Jesse Jackass now about this.

-- nope (nope@no.pe), April 24, 2001.

I 'dont' work for a sheister. My boss is the BEST, trust that. It is the COMPANIES....

Deano, yes claims history, years with company, dont mean shit.

All they care bout is your credit score. I will be in Columbus in June with a big insurance company who has NOT yet begun the scoring, but will surely find out 'when' they will.....they now score on homeowners and renters, not auto. YET.

I'm telling you truth. Call around for rates, ASK people, ASK, do you SCORE my credit? WHY?

As for slinging fries at McD's, uh uh, I dont like zits and I make a lil more than min. wage already. ha.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 24, 2001.

Hey Sumer,

What if a person has *no* credit history? My cousin inherited his house, buys used cars with cash he's saved, and doesn't have a single credit card. He doesn't believe in them.

He works at an entry-level admin job, yet has managed to save over 25% of his income.

What happens to rare birds like him?

-- kb8 (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 24, 2001.

It strikes me as a real ripoff (as opposed to those practices in that industry that aren't legitimate but can somehow be rationalized). After all, premiums are paid in advance of the time period to be covered. If the insurer doesn't get paid, they can (rightly) cancel or expire the policy.

sumer, have you come across any "official" rationale that attempts to defend this practice.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 24, 2001.

sumer,

This is another of many reasons why I GOT OUT of insurance and back into radio engineering. Some gerbil in some underwriting department somewhere decided that there was a link between credit ratings and the likelihood of a loss and that was that. Most major companies do this now.

I don't know about your companies, but before we could even quote a premium with ours, we had to "score" them using -- among other things -- their credit ratings.

A class action lawsuit? I dunno. This has been going on for some time; if such a suit was likely, it should've already happened.

Just musing here ... *IF* (and note that I say "if") there IS a basis for such a suit, it might rest in demonstrating that these companies are using credit records as a way to weed out minorities and the less fortunate.

I can't prove this, but I have suspected it for some time. Think about it: you can't turn someone away for belonging to the "wrong family" or having the "wrong" skin color, but a company can refuse coverage for bad credit. Hmmm ...

(And lest anyone think that I'm blowing bubbles here, don't forget, if you rent an apartment or even want to establish a new bank account nowdays, they're very likely to check your credit record. Now, why would they do that -- especially seeing as how they're going to get a deposit from you to cover the rent ANYWAY ...?)

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 24, 2001.

kb8,

What if a person has *no* credit history?

Depends on the company. Some of ours only cared if there were *bad* things on the credit report. Others literally "scored" you the same as if you were seeking a loan.

'sumer will have to tell how her companies do it.

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), April 24, 2001.

That link www.choicepoint.com doesn't quite go with your post. Is that the correct link? Has nothing to do with credit. curious

-- curious (None@nowhere.now), April 24, 2001.

https://www.cplink2.com/bin/web_loginout.exe

I am no expert at the linky thing :-)

But the above is how we login. I know Mr. Poole and someone else discussed choicepoint at poole's roost.

RE: have you gotten any (lemme me TRY to remember the wording, i aint had my 3rd cup of java yet;-) attempt to validate the companies reasoning, as a matter of fact, its on my desk now.

If you wish I'll photocopy it, and can email a copy to you.

Stephen, insurance is bout ALL I know how to do right bout now. Sucks dont it? :-) I do LOVE my boss and my co-workers, I wont leave, shoot, partime, when I can for a lil bit of spendin cash isnt so bad.

In short, I HATE this new credit score stuff. Stephen, not only do we score, but we now basically underwrite the WHOLE thing, clue reports, credit score, additional driver reports, it all MUST be done before we place the business.

And to KB, yep it matters to your friend, IF he has had no insurance, with a no-hit score, he would be placed in a lower tier, thus costing him more money.

So imho, yep, it does weed out the poor and discriminates. I HOPE a class action happens. My REAL concern is for those of US and I say US who should not be looked at for insurance because of credit.

I shudder to think what is next. BTW, stephen, I'm in Ohio so I think perhaps ohio just recently caught the clue bus on this credit stuff.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.

Interesting report, 'Sumer, but not at all surprising. We've rented a few apartments where they not only did credit checks, but we had to bring in a copy of our 1040 to demonstrate how much income we'd made the year before.

kb8: I was as stubborn as your cousin for many years. No credit for a 20-year old is acceptable, but as one gets older, it becomes more and more difficult to obtain credit without a credit history. If I were you, I'd encourage him to apply for a few credit cards. If he's not too old for someone to accept him already, encourage him to USE the card for a year. He won't encounter any interest if he pays off the bill each month. If that credit card isn't a major one, he should then apply for a major one. If he gets it, he should use THAT one for a year. He can cut up the non-major credit card at this point.

It's difficult to go through life without credit. He may want to travel and rent a car [impossible without a credit card] someday. The list grows longer of situations wherein no credit means BAD credit.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2001.

I keep telling him that, Anita. He's 34 and should have a Master Card or a Visa for emergencies, but he won't apply. His main excuse is that he's an unmarried homebody and that credit card companies are the scum of the earth. The last trip he took was with his parents to Canada when he was 12. Since then, he's never been more than thirty miles from home, or so he says. I suspect that's true. His life centers around his job, computer games, and watching sports on TV. That's it. He doesn't bother to date anymore because women find him boring. As another cousin says, he is an odd duck.

-- kb8 (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 25, 2001.

34 years old and only been to Canada? geez Kb, I've been to almost everyplace BUT canada...hee hee.

BTW, how was your trip to florida, was it?

FWIW, cant re-train an ol duck either.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.

Kb8:

His excuses sound much like mine. I didn't "break down" until one day when I went shopping at Penney's. I don't remember if it was a free umbrella or 25% off store merchandise, but I was provided an incentive to just APPLY. It didn't matter if I was accepted or not. I applied, and received notification from Penney's that I'd been denied. I thought, "How could this be? I pay my bills on time and have tons of money in the bank." Just out of curiosity, I applied for a few more non-major cards. They ALL turned me down. Little did I know that these rejections would stay on my credit report for three years. I finally gave some bank $1,000 to obtain a "secured" card. I got my money back with interest after a year, but I'd established credit.

'Sumer: Would ya do me a favor and cut and paste what's been going on in that Barefoot and Pregnant thread? Either my server is balking, or the baling wire has fallen off this old PC, but I can't get to the bottom of the thread and I'm tired of wasting time trying. The last I saw was Maria's response to Helen regarding the midwife thing. I feel like I'd imagine folks do when they can't watch the latest episode of their soap opera.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2001.

This is a great way to piss everyone off. But just for you anita:Helen, it's a woman's choice. As I said I know many who had home births with no problems whatsoever. The choice is yours. Absolutely go to the hospital if you feel it is warranted. But don't say that all women must go to the hospital. There are lots who would say they don't want that kind of setting for their childbirth experience. But that's not the point of the article and a topic for another thread. Tar says that the pill should be covered and has yet to give adequate reason why. Well I guess he doesn't have to state why. It's his opinion, and no matter how wrong, he's entitled to it.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Bush is proposing that contraception be *removed* from the current federal health plan, which is where this entire discussion started. How could he remove what wasn't there to begin with? Sophistry, Flint. I have consistantly and clearly argued for the coverage of contraception and have never once made the argument that "You are simply saying current health plans cover contraceptives. If you can point out to me where I made this argument, I'd appreciate it.

I was attempting to make precisely the same argument you were, except using different examples for the purpose of illustrating flaws in the argument itself. It appeared to me that as soon as you saw the flaws in your argument, you started to claim that unless I used the exact same wording and examples you did, it was no longer the same line of reasoning (that is, a different argument).

No, I just refuse to defend arguments I didn't make.

The only way I can avoid your saying "That's not what I said" is to simply quote you, making no effort to understand what those quotes might mean. This is a sterile exercise, and a rather flimsy excuse for you to hide behind.

You could also try addressing arguments that I've actually made rather than ones you wish I had made. I know that's not beyond you, Flint, in fact, you've proved yourself more than capable of this numerous times.

Not. I'll try to make this next point extremely carefully. First, preventive health care is effective and worthwhile. Nobody says otherwise. Such care is (IMO) a *wise purchase*. Prevention is not insurance.

In the case of health insurance, it is a covered expense because it saves the insurers and the insured money.

Now, somehow I doubt that such things save insurance companies money.

Our insurance agent and our building's insurance agent provide the same safety measures to our company free because the cost of putting up a $3 "WARNING! HIGH VOLTAGE!" sign near the building's generator is a lot cheaper than paying for the cost of someone to electrocute themselves.

So these deliberate, planned expenses end up saving money, you're right, but NOT for insurance companies.

No, they also save money for the insurance companies. For instance, since I have had testicular cancer, I'm a prime candidate to get it again. Everytime I go to the doctor's office for another check-up, it costs the insurance company $100 (I get statements of what they've paid). My initial treatment for cancer cost the company roughly $65,000 all told (possibly more, I'm still getting statements). Keep in mind my case wasn't nearly as involved as was originally thought, so it could have conceivably been much more. It just makes more sense for them to pay $100 every few months to save another $65,000 +. They save money for the employers because they tend to postpone major medical expenses beyond retirement age (we all die sometime). And this is good for you and me, because it's in our best interest to postpone anything catastrophic for as long as we possibly can.

Eh... no. For instance, not every person who gets a tetanus shot is delaying lockjaw. Not every person who gets a mammogram ends up with breast cancer. As you've said before, it's a gamble. However, someone will end up on the losing end of that gamble, and those people can cost a surprising amount of money for the insurance company. Isn't it better to minimize the risk in the first place? Especially when you consider that early detection and treatment of most diseases is much cheaper than later stage detection and treatment?

So why is the insurance business involved in such expenses at all? This isn't insurance. Quite the contrary, it's to make insurance less costly. Wouldn't it be better to cut the insurance middleman out of preventive health care, save his cut, get the money in salary or wages instead, and purchase these things directly? Why wouldn't this be cheaper for *everyone* (except the insurance companies, who take their profit off planned expenses just like everything else)?

Some people would agree with you, which is why we have Flexible Spending Accounts and Cafeteria Plans. Others feel that since the rest of the healthcare system is predicated on health insurers (who are obligated, by the way, to pay only the "reasonable and expected" cost of care rather than the bill amount, which you or I would pay) they are simply priced out of the market. I'm fortunate, I make a good living, I have some savings, my family has done reasonably well and has connections to the med field. I probably would have done all right without health insurance. But most folks can't say that.

My question is, if preventive maintenance IS covered by health plans, why is it NOT covered by home or auto plans? Sure, by "covering" guaranteed standard expenses, my home or auto premiums would skyrocket. But skyrocketing premiums doesn't seem to deter health plans. Why not?

First of all, homeowner's and auto insurance developed differently than health insurance. If all insurance worked the same way, we wouldn't have a difference between homeowner's insurance and renter's insurance. After all, we don't have a difference in auto insurance for someone who's only leasing a car and not buying one.

Secondly, you haven't established that healthcare premiums have skyrocketed since preventative health care was established. It's not your fault, since, AFAIK, preventative health care has been a part of health insurance since the beginning. If you'd like to compare the difference in rates over time, we can do that.

Earlier, I speculated that employers were encouraging such coverages for their own profit, acting as parents of irresponsible children who would spend the extra income (no longer paid in premiums) on beer or some such.

I'm glad you've moved your position on employer-sponsored health insurance from mandatory to encouraged. Health insurance is never mandatory, but is encouraged. Even with health insurance however, no one is required to go to the doctor. For instance, one of my co- workers developed a really nasty case of the flu that developed into walking pneumonia before we (meaning the people who had to sit in meetings with her coughing her lungs out) told her to go to the doctor and not get us sick. Health insurance no more forces employees to be healthy than auto insurance forces people to be better drivers.

I really see no other reason why health plans should be different, when maintenance has a far broader application.

Honestly, I think it's just a function of development, in other words, "That's just the way it is," You can call this lame, because it is rather lame. Health insurance is a more recent type of insurance than auto, life, or homeowner's. If you're really curious about this, I can probably dig up some info. In the meantime, here's a link to the Health Insurer's Association of America. I've just skimmed their site, but they might have some more answers for you.

Sigh. No, the definition of insurance is shared risk. NOT discounts on purchases.

I still dont' get it. If Mrs. Leary's barn burns down and she uses money I've paid on my property insurance to build a new one, isn't she using my money to pay for something I'd rather not pay for? Her purchase is subsidized by at least one person, me, who would rather not subsidize it.

Like Doc Daneeka in Catch-22, saying that with life insurance, when you lose you win and when you win you lose? Sure, I'm delighted to enter a risk pool, and consider it a requirement. But I STILL don't want to have to draw from that pool! I'd rather not break my hip, and I probably won't. Even if it's covered, I'd rather not break it.

But we're not talking about your hip, Flint. We're talking about Mrs. Clumsy Neighbor. You were complaining about your money being used for things you wouldn't buy under preventative health care. However, even with only catastrophic coverage, you're STILL paying for things you'd rather not buy, unless of course, you do want to pay for someone else's new hip.

I followed your link, but it wasn't clear how this plan worked. Does this mean women can choose to buy oral contraceptives themselves, saving the money they'd otherwise spend paying insurance companies to buy it for them, while men can choose not to buy it at all? Sounds great to me.

In a Cafeteria Plan (or Flexible Spending Account), employees figure out how much they'll spend on health-related expenses for the following year. Pre-tax dollars are then taken from their account (if they wish to participate) and held in a seperate account. You incur the expenses and then you submit a claim and get a check back. There are some limits of course, for instance, you can only spend up to the amount you set aside. If you don't spend the full amount, you forfeit the money. Secondly, you must use it on a health care related expense, you can't use it to make a car payment. There are limits to how much money you can put into the system (I think it's $5000, I'm not sure). You can also use this money for child care related expenses. Many employers offer these plans in addition to health insurance. I have no idea whether federal insurance has this option.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Off. Tar wrote, "Back in 1978, it was routine to not cover pregnancies." Wow we've come a long way since 1978, haven't we. Funny, I didn't know that. Back in 1978 my insurance did cover pregnancies.

Lucky you. And I mean that. A lot of insurance plans didn't.

But point is Tar, contraceptives come in many forms, oral being one of them. Pregnancies only come in one form. Thanks for your input.

You'll argue about anything so long as I said it, won't you? It's cute, keep it up! From the above article, "But his plan bars support for prescription coverage for all forms of oral contraceptives. . . limiting women's access to oral contraception" So, as this article states, I'm talking about the pill, not all contraceptives. Besides, did they cover Trojans before this ruling? How 'bout spermicides?

Since you don't need to see a doctor to get over the counter medication, these contraceptives wouldn't be covered, for the same reason that aspirin, Pepto-Bismol, and NyQuil aren't covered.

Since I'm all over the page on this, tell me what you mean by, "This does not make pregnancy an illness, however, to a woman who does not wish to become pregnant, it is an undesired condition." Are you saying that any undesired condition should be covered by medical insurance? That's even worse than drawing an analogy between preventing pregnancy and preventing disease.

*sigh*

No Maria. Reproduction is a matter of physical health, like weight. Some women wish to reproduce so badly that they seek out fertility experts. For them, not being pregnant is an undesired condition. Health plans provide treatment for this, though it's not a disease. Other women wish to delay or forgo reproduction. For them, being pregnant is an undesired condition. Why shouldn't health plans cover this?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Tar, because there are other forms of birth control available.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

...that are considerably less effective. There are a lot of drug out there that have less effective, OTC alternatives, yet we continue to provide coverage for them. For instance, I just filled a perscription for Alegra. Sure, I could have taken an OTC antihistemine, but none really worked for me. And before you start, I recognize that allergies are not illnesses. Health care plans don't judge the reason why treatment is necessary nor do they refuse to cover medications that have OTC alternatives simply because the OTC alternatives are available. Except, of course, in the case of contraception and women who choose to delay reproduction.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Tylenol is another example of where a prescription drug would be more effective in controlling pain. Some plans cover prescriptions; some plans don't. As I recall my plan didn't cover prescriptions at all, yet covered the pill. Your allegra or my prescription Tylenol wouldn't be covered. So it worked in reverse of your complaints against this ruling. Point is, plans come in many shapes and sizes, you pick the one you like based on your needs. Point is, which I made before, an insurance company can cover whatever it wants and charge you whatever it wants. Free enterprise and consumer free choice. "Health care plans don't judge the reason why treatment is necessary." Sorry, Tar, they most certainly do. Insurance fraud is a major concern for insurance companies. They would like to reduce this to zero. They examine every claim in detail, to determine if you have paid for the particular treatment you're requesting. If your plan covers "elective" surgery, then they'll pay. However, if you chose to have a nose job for no medical reason outside of better looks and your plan doesn't cover it, you best believe, they won't pay. Now the doctor can "falsify" the claim to say that your nasal passages require a "rooter router" but this is of course fraud. Insurance companies "judge" all the time.

This "undesired condition" is a lifestyle choice for it IS a desired condition for some. Insurance companies do not need to pay for preventing this "undesired condition", which by your own admission, can change. The "undesired condition" of weight gain carries with it nasty health implications, which no one wants. No comparison.

Tar, we'll never agree on this, so I agree that we disagree. You know you can't change the mind of someone who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so why do you bother?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Point is, plans come in many shapes and sizes, you pick the one you like based on your needs. Point is, which I made before, an insurance company can cover whatever it wants and charge you whatever it wants. Free enterprise and consumer free choice. NOT!!!!! Insurance companies ARE Regulated price wise.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Tylenol is another example of where a prescription drug would be more effective in controlling pain. Some plans cover prescriptions; some plans don't. As I recall my plan didn't cover prescriptions at all, yet covered the pill. So to be completely accurate, your plan covered some perscriptions, but not others.

Point is, plans come in many shapes and sizes, you pick the one you like based on your needs. Point is, which I made before, an insurance company can cover whatever it wants and charge you whatever it wants. Free enterprise and consumer free choice.

Except in the case of denying coverage to classes of people. Insurance companies, for instance, can't deny coverage of pregnancy because that is an example of gender discrimination. They would not be able to deny coverage of sickle cell anemia because that would be an example of racial discrimination. "Health care plans don't judge the reason why treatment is necessary." Sorry, Tar, they most certainly do. Insurance fraud is a major concern for insurance companies. They would like to reduce this to zero. They examine every claim in detail, to determine if you have paid for the particular treatment you're requesting.

Oh, sorry, I'll have to take this a little more slow. It's my fault.

Health insurers don't care why you need care, only that you actually need care. For instance, if you have a car accident, your health insurance won't deny you coverage just because you were drunk. If you needed a dose of penicilian, the insurance company wouldn't care if you needed it for the clap or for strep throat. All they care about is certifying that you need care, not why you need care.

Let me know if I need to go over this point again.

This "undesired condition" is a lifestyle choice for it IS a desired condition for some. Insurance companies do not need to pay for preventing this "undesired condition", which by your own admission, can change. The "undesired condition" of weight gain carries with it nasty health implications, which no one wants. No comparison.

And yet, pregnancy itself carries many health implications as well, such as weight gain, heart stress, hemorroids, nausea, fatiuge, and increased risk of gestational diabetes, anemia, and high blood pressure, and on and on. Now some women would see this list and immediately decide to adopt. Others would see this list and say, "Who cares? I want a kid!"

Tar, we'll never agree on this, so I agree that we disagree.

If you want out, so be it.

You know you can't change the mind of someone who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, so why do you bother?

It is sort of difficult to discuss an issue with someone who equates prenatal care to a stack of pamphlets. But I must admit that I love watching you twist yourself into ever more ridiculous arguments. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

It's a bit of a guilty pleasure. Like um eating 3 snickers bars at night-time? :-)

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

More like watching Jerry Springer. Want to here something really disgusting? I've always been skinny, but I lost too much weight on chemo and my doctor wants me to eat about 3,000 calories a day to slowly gain it back. I've got a metabolism that works overtime and I love a good workout (I swim mostly) so I'm not gaining weight as quick as my doctor would like. So he's actually told me to throw some higher calorie foods into my diet (within reason of course). Now if I get a late-night junk food craving I can honestly claim it's good for me. Both Jane and my sister are ready to strangle me.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), April 25, 2001.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.

Back to the original topic . . . .

I suspect that it won't be long before more companies use credit reports as a basis to hire employees. I heard that one of the small, local banks in our area has been doing it (I don't have proof -- this is strictly hearsay).

The trip to FL was GREAT. We're engaged and half-assly planning a weding for late August. Her father is back in the hospital with fairly serious heart/breathing problems. If this is the beginning of the end for him, we'll postpone our wedding. We're planning a small one: just immediate family at the service and then anyone who cares to attend a potluck/picnic lunch at a nearby metro park. We'll reserve a shelter well in advance. We're trying to do this for around $500 or so, and I think we'll be fairly close to that. Her mom is pissed because she wants a storybook wedding, but she's not willing to kick in more than $150 to make that happen, and neither of us want to spend thousands on a "typical" ceremony. Ah, thread drift. . . . .

-- kb8 (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 25, 2001.

Ohhh I luv THREAD DRIFTS, as you can tell.

How cool, you are getting married....going to the chapple and were...gonna get maaaariiieddd, gee I really luv you and were gonna get marrrrieid!!!

Cool. Hey my wedding was a borrowed gown, very beautiful, cake & icecream and we went to fancy restaurant, IF peeps wanted to go, they had the understanding they footed their own bill. We had great wedding. Simple and lovely. 50 people.

We just celebrated our 8th. Sooo many ways to keep it under control financially, do invites on puter, etc.......

I'm leaving for Florida, Maderia (sp?) on the 4th of May. I will email you later on re: Columbus. My co-worker and I will be by Broad Street in some hotel....we are all about finding a cocktail place. hee hee, were sooo baddd!!!

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 25, 2001.

Yeah, let me know. I don't know what's down on Broad. I mostly hang near High Street and Nationwide, with an occasional forray into German Village.

Yes, inexpensive is good! I think we've come up with some good alternatives to the traditional expenses (borrowed wedding dress, computer invites, small number of guests, family photographers (three people on both sides take professional-quality pix). Our main expenses at this point look like the chapel/pastor (we have a small side chapel at our church, just perfect for a small wedding) and the food. Depending on the number of guests, we might be best off having the wonderful folks at the Kroger Deli put together some sandwich trays for us. That's still under discussion. I don't have a problem with that -- it's still more affordable than a $15/plate catered supper and might be less tacky to some folks than a potluck, although we've both attended plenty of potluck receptions. That's not at all unheard of in our church. And so it goes . . . . . . . . .

-- kb8 (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 25, 2001.

Sumer, thanks for posting this. Bet they have been doing this for a long time, longer than anybody knows. Bet they also look at assets too, cause we had one Pru******l agent follow us around for several months, wanted to do a life estate, and put our stuff in a trust, that he would manage. Jerk even followed us to Dairy Queen one day. Finally got rid of him. suzy

-- suzy (suzy@no.place), April 25, 2001.

RE: have you gotten any (lemme me TRY to remember the wording, i aint had my 3rd cup of java yet;-) attempt to validate the companies reasoning, as a matter of fact, its on my desk now.

If you wish I'll photocopy it, and can email a copy to you.

Sounds good. Thanks, sumer.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 26, 2001.

David, I'm at work now, later on after I'm off, I'll email it to you. Is the above your true email addy?

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 27, 2001.

Yes it is. Thanks.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), April 27, 2001.