"We Were Stunned When We Saw This in Michael Moore's Latest Film" — Claire Shipm

[Soul Crusher]

...and my question is answered where in this post? Or any other post? All I see is a dismissal of an explicitly hypothetical question on the grounds that it is hypothetical.

This accusatory stance you adopt; of claiming you have disproved something you haven't even addressed is patently laughable. Answer a question, or maybe try addressing an argument, maybe even attempt a counter argument if you want to be taken seriously.

I don't make personal attacks here... I attack and mock stupidity; prejudice and illogical thinking in all their forms. Some of you take that personally, but that says more about my detractors than it does about me.

That's why you aren't considered just plain stupid when you react in this way, you are redneck stupid: stoopid.


My challenge remains, if there is nothing wrong with "Dead Peasant" insurance policies... would there similarly be nothing wrong with applying such a policy to soldiers?



The Luke

Luke: you are brain dead.  Must be too much sniffing chemicals in the lab on your part. 

Your question is not even worth answering because its ridiculous and completely neglects the fact that the govt' can't be prosecuted for murder for sending soldiers off to war to die for a payout on the policy.  The two examples you gave are apples and oranges.

If a corp murders its workers for payouts on the policy(s), the carrier does not have to pay out since murder by one of the parties to the contract for pecuniary gain is always an exclusion under any life insurance policy. 

Are you saying that corporations murder their workers for $?

   

 

[headhuntersix]

First off...Uncle Sam isn't in the business of loosing soldiers..unlike popular myths created by libs...we're very highly trained and its expansiuve even to replace a bullet magnet infantryman. This is yet another ridiculous Luke inspired thread

[The Luke]

First off...Uncle Sam isn't in the business of loosing soldiers..unlike popular myths created by libs...we're very highly trained and its expansiuve even to replace a bullet magnet infantryman.

...sounds insurable to me? Isn't that the whole purpose of insurance, to hedge against financial loss?

I think you guys are forgetting the basic rules of discussion, you can't really make the other guys point and then disagree with him.


The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

...sounds insurable to me? Isn't that the whole purpose of insurance, to hedge against financial loss?

I think you guys are forgetting the basic rules of discussion, you can't really make the other guys point and then disagree with him.


The Luke

If the govt could do this why havent they? 

BECAUSE NO INSURER WOULD EVER WRITE THAT POLICY SINCE ITS A RIDICULOUS PREMISE IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

[The Luke]

If the govt could do this why havent they? 

BECAUSE NO INSURER WOULD EVER WRITE THAT POLICY SINCE ITS A RIDICULOUS PREMISE IN THE FIRST PLACE. 

...so HYPOTHETICALLY would such a policy, if it existed, be moral? In your opinion.


The Luke

[Soul Crusher]

...so HYPOTHETICALLY would such a policy, if it existed, be moral? In your opinion.


The Luke

Insurance is not about morals, its about protecting an asset.

[Skip8282]

I don't make personal attacks here...

The Luke

Luke, you are a leader of personal attacks here.  Just because you don't typically name the person, implying or insinuating that the people you are discoursing with are dumb, stupid, ignorant, especially because they simply don't agree with you, is still a personal attack.  I know you think of yourself as an intellectual who's trying to slide one by, but I assure you, ad-hom attacks are second nature for you.

[Soul Crusher]

Luke, you are a leader of personal attacks here.  Just because you don't typically name the person, implying or insinuating that the people you are discoursing with are dumb, stupid, ignorant, especially because they simply don't agree with you, is still a personal attack.  I know you think of yourself as an intellectual who's trying to slide one by, but I assure you, ad-hom attacks are second nature for you.

Skip: its hard to have a conversation with Luke because he is so uninformed about these topics.  He presents hypothetical questions that bear no resemblence to reality and he expects me to provide him answers.

Its ridiculous.   

[Skip8282]

...it's called "moral hazard".

Based on the history of corporate behaviour, would YOU want to incentivise a corporation to wish you ill?


Imagine a mine operator who institutes the full gamut of health and safety procedures necessary to guarantee a very low cost premium on the lives of his miners.

Is he incentivised to maintain his stringent health and safety standards, even at the cost of profit?

Or is he incentivised to maximum profit at the cost of health and safety?


Actually he is incentivised to maximise profits by cutting back on health and safety right up until the point where his "Dead Peasants" premiums start to increase beyond the savings made in reduced health and safety.

Effectively, he has to decide upon and quantify the cost of his workers lives, which is immoral. Mathematics then dictates the death toll.


We've already had 200 years of profits above safety, it was called the Industrial Revolution... not a nice time for those involved.


The Luke

Alright.  Seems we're getting somewhere.  You can't name a moral that the insurance company has violated, you're simply worried that the company may act immorally if given to such temptation.

What about occupations where the company has a vested interest in keeping the person healthy?  Ex:  Airline Pilot.

What about banks who make large loans to individuals?

As to your challenge, that's what I'm trying to figure here.  I'm not agreeing with your assumption that it's either good or bad in all cases.  There may be times where it should be acceptable and times when it should not be acceptable.

[Skip8282]

Skip: its hard to have a conversation with Luke because he is so uninformed about these topics.  He presents hypothetical questions that bear no resemblence to reality and he expects me to provide him answers.

Its ridiculous.   

Yeah, that's the very core of the problem.  He's making an assumption and deriving a non-sense hypothetical from it.

[headhuntersix]

Luke....we're insured. My family gets 450K if I get smoked and another 100k within 24 houres after I'm confirmed dead. They get their medical and my son gets my GI Bill or about 65 grand in financial aid. I also have insurance on them under the same plan. Whats the point the ur thread again?

[The Luke]

Luke....we're insured. My family gets 450K if I get smoked and another 100k within 24 houres after I'm confirmed dead. They get their medical and my son gets my GI Bill or about 65 grand in financial aid. I also have insurance on them under the same plan. Whats the point the ur thread again?

...would you resign your commission if you found out the army was sending you back to Iraq/Afghanistan but had a billion dollar "Dead Peasants" policy, payable to the US government?

Simple question, pretty hypothetical... but you need only give me a hypothetical answer.


The Luke