MR. WATSON: So anyway, guys, look here. Which is the most beneficial definition? Own occupation, because it's easier to qualify as being disabled.

MR. WATSON: Now, they're not going to let a hammerer guy get own occupation. They're not going to let a construction guy get an own occupation policy. They're not going to let people like us have own occupation. Doctors, certain lawyers, only those people can get own occupation. Folks in AAA classification.

MR. WATSON: When they do let people like carpenters or guys like us have own occupation, it will be for a limited time, and the definition will change at the end of year 2 of the disability. To "any occupation." So the guy loses his hand. Under own occupation is he disabled?

ALL: Yes.

MR. WATSON: Yes. At the end of the second year, did he grow a new hand?

ALL: No.

MR. WATSON: Did his condition change?

ALL: No.

MR. WATSON: But the definition would change to any occupation, and then his benefits would stop because he no longer meets the definition of being disabled. This allows him to be retrained for some other occupation.

MR. WATSON: A doctor would not buy a disability policy where the definition changed. Do you agree?

ALL: Yes.

MR. WATSON: Dr. Barnard, his definition did not change. But to sell it to blue collar workers, even white collar workers like us, the definition might change, because who is more likely to feign a disability? A doctor who went to school all these years? Or a guy working on a roof in 105-degree heat, who wishes he went to law school? Who is the more likely to feign a disability? Roofer. Oh Yeah! So if they allow him to have own occupation, the definition will change after the second year.

MR. WATSON: Because, under "any occupation", it would be real hard for a construction guy to meet the policy definition of being disabled, wouldn't it? He can always rake or, you know, hold the flag, be the stop/go guy on the side of the road..