General > General Technical Chat

Insurers continue scamming businessowners AROUND THE WORLD!

<< < (5/9) > >>

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: tom66 on December 19, 2020, 10:19:57 am ---
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on December 19, 2020, 02:20:43 am ---It is actually the literal opposite.

Insurance only makes sense for events that occur fairly frequently across the entire population, making them statistically predictable.
Then, it is not a matter of gambling whether a covered event occurs, but simply balancing the payment pool and coverage.  Individual events occur so often that it no longer is cost effective for the insurance company to fight every claim in court.

This works fine as long as the insurance company behaviour is controlled by simple rules.  For example, denying coverage because the payment pool is depleted, must not be allowed.  If it is allowed, then there is zero business risk for the insurance company.

--- End quote ---

Well, you're seeing it from the view point of the insurer, but it's roughly the same.

--- End quote ---
I think I understand how you see insurance, and that you don't think we really disagree (and that we're just describing the same thing from opposite viewpoints), but I believe you are missing a crucial point.

Getting an insurance makes sense when the event you insure against would be personally devastating, but across the population is not rare.  Housefires, car accidents, such.

Neither Louis or I claimed those are scams.  We are specifically talking about business insurance, and insurances sold against pandemics, flooding, natural catastrophes, and other such globally rare event, being scams.

But:

--- Quote from: tom66 on December 19, 2020, 10:19:57 am ---And pandemic insurance just can't exist, just as nuclear war insurance can't exist - the payouts required ($25k per business per month for example?) just are not feasible for even the largest reinsurer.
--- End quote ---
Yet, the insurance companies still sell these.  The scam is that they have zero intention of ever being able to fulfill their end of the contract.

Similarly, business insurances are often scams, because the insurance company has zero intention of paying out when the clauses are actually fulfilled, and instead weigh the payment pool against court costs and possible losses there.  The payment pool is their profit, and their court costs and losses at court are the cost of doing this scam business.  Similarly for every smaller insurance company, when the payout limit is high: Nobody ever gets the high payment without a court case, and that is the scam. The insurance taker is never told that they will be expected to fight the insurance company in court, usually already in a catastrophic financial situation because of whatever the insurance was supposed to cover.

That is the scam. At the face of it, the contract does not match the insurance company intent, and is therefore fraudulent.  It is only allowed, because people like you defend them.

Yes, Tom66.  I am calling you the true evil here.  Perhaps you should consider the real-world effects of your stance.  Just because you know that you cannot expect the contract to be fulfilled at its face value (and that in any case where lots of money would flow the other way, a court case is to be expected), does not make it not-a-scam.

tom66:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on December 19, 2020, 10:34:53 am ---Yet, the insurance companies still sell these.  The scam is that they have zero intention of ever being able to fulfill their end of the contract.

Similarly, business insurances are often scams, because the insurance company has zero intention of paying out when the clauses are actually fulfilled, and instead weigh the payment pool against court costs and possible losses there.  The payment pool is their profit, and their court costs and losses at court are the cost of doing this scam business.  Similarly for every smaller insurance company, when the payout limit is high: Nobody ever gets the high payment without a court case, and that is the scam. The insurance taker is never told that they will be expected to fight the insurance company in court, usually already in a catastrophic financial situation because of whatever the insurance was supposed to cover.

That is the scam. At the face of it, the contract does not match the insurance company intent, and is therefore fraudulent.  It is only allowed, because people like you defend them.

Yes, Tom66.  I am calling you the true evil here.  Perhaps you should consider the real-world effects of your stance.  Just because you know that you cannot expect the contract to be fulfilled at its face value (and that in any case where lots of money would flow the other way, a court case is to be expected), does not make it not-a-scam.

--- End quote ---

When did I defend such things as pandemic insurance?  I literally stated that they are not possible to fulfill.  You would have to limit the scope to what is covered to the point of being useless.

Regular insurances, like car, house, etc insurance make sense.  It does not make sense to buy house insurance for the risk of you spilling red wine on carpets. Insurers sell these to foolish people,  but that is capitalism,  and they will pay out for the small number of claims that are made,  so if people want to waste their money on that kind of shit, let them. 

As I stated insurance is only for risks that are hard to defend against, that can be pooled in risk.  Pandemics don't count.  And you WILL see exclusions from things like pandemics in insurance policies, just like you will often see riot or civil commotion excluded.  READ THE DAMN CONTRACT!!!  Business insurance is for, say, a burst pipe floods the store and all the merchandise is destroyed.  It is for individual risks that are hard to defend against.   The US Government indemnifies rocket launches for risks above $100 million because no reinsurer would take possibly incredible loss as a risk worth taking (Falcon Heavy coming down over Orlando?  That cannot be insured against.)  Perhaps if the USA had a functional government,  the pandemic response (both economic, social and healthcare) would have been better - but they did not.

You wouldn't criticise someone for buying a VW Polo, when they had 7 kids.  They bought the wrong product for the wrong job.

cdev:
The situation at the international level with coronavirus is pretty interesting.  This isn't about insurance, it seems, (in this case international treaties and the investor-state dispute procedures often act like insurance, in indemnifying companies against actions by "States")  as much as about who is responsible for a risk which basically all humanity shares.

It seems to me that corporations should share that risk with countries, but they don't always see it that way.  There is definitely an obligation to minimize risk. But ...

"A successful claim of force majeure must fulfill 5 conditions: (i) there must be an unforeseen event or an irresistible force (the ‘triggering event’); (ii) the event or force must be beyond the control of the State; (iii) the event must make it ‘materially’ impossible to perform an obligation; (iv) the State must not have contributed to the situation; and (v) the State must not have assumed the risk of the situation occurring. Each of these will be assessed in turn, except for (v) which is likely to depend on the specific language of particular treaty commitments."




https://www.ejiltalk.org/covid-19-and-defences-in-the-law-of-state-responsibility-part-i/
https://www.ejiltalk.org/covid-19-and-defences-in-the-law-of-state-responsibility-part-ii/

http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/03/30/covid-19-and-investment-treaty-claims/


Does anybody here have any experience as a manufacturer with issues like "force majure" etc.?

bdunham7:

--- Quote from: tom66 on December 19, 2020, 05:59:33 pm ---The US Government indemnifies rocket launches for risks above $100 million because no reinsurer would take possibly incredible loss as a risk worth taking (Falcon Heavy coming down over Orlando?  That cannot be insured against.)

--- End quote ---

It is insurable and reinsurance is available into the $100 billion range--for a price that nobody wants to pay up front.  That indemnification is really just a subsidy to lower the cost of rocket launches.  The alternative would be to let the launches go uninsured above the limit of a policy that the company was willing to pay for--and that limit is typically determined by the assets of the company, not the potential damage they might do. 

Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: tom66 on December 19, 2020, 05:59:33 pm ---When did I defend such things as pandemic insurance?  I literally stated that they are not possible to fulfill.

--- End quote ---
Perhaps I read your text wrong, then; I understood that you meant that because they are impossible, nobody should be stupid enough to fall for them.

It is that stance that is the root of this evil, this scam scheme.  If that is not your stance, then obviously I mischaracterized you, and sincirely apologise for that.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." expresses pretty well my point.  Not actively helping stop scammers is the reason why scammers can scam.  It is not the scammers themselves that are evil; they are just opportunists – so perhaps immoral, obviously untrustworthy, and so on – but no evil.  Evil is to see the damage, and to choose to do nothing, to choose to accept it by doing nothing.

(The reason I am sometimes so offensive, is because so much of the evil in the world I have encountered, exists only because statists are unwilling to help stop it.  Because of that, I want to, uh, poke?, those statists, to make them acknowledge the effect of that stance.  That stance, the enablers, are the real evil in this world, in my opinion.)


--- Quote from: tom66 on December 19, 2020, 05:59:33 pm ---Regular insurances, like car, house, etc insurance make sense.  It does not make sense to buy house insurance for the risk of you spilling red wine on carpets. Insurers sell these to foolish people,  but that is capitalism,  and they will pay out for the small number of claims that are made,  so if people want to waste their money on that kind of shit, let them.
--- End quote ---
As long as the plain reading of the contract matches what (statistically, across all clients making that contract with the company) happens in real life, I have no objections.  It's not even capitalism, it is plain healthy competition on a level marketplace.

But that's not what we are talking about here.

We are talking about insurance companies banking on fighting the claims in court, because there is no small claims court or class action suits.  It is no longer a matter of balancing the pool against claims; it is when the companies deliberately bank on fighting every substantial claim, regardless of what the plain reading of the contract says.  And also when a company sells insurance it cannot and will not cover in any situation.


--- Quote from: tom66 on December 19, 2020, 05:59:33 pm ---As I stated insurance is only for risks that are hard to defend against, that can be pooled in risk.  Pandemics don't count.  And you WILL see exclusions from things like pandemics in insurance policies, just like you will often see riot or civil commotion excluded.  READ THE DAMN CONTRACT!!!
--- End quote ---
You didn't watch the video, did you?


--- Quote from: tom66 on December 19, 2020, 05:59:33 pm ---You wouldn't criticise someone for buying a VW Polo, when they had 7 kids.  They bought the wrong product for the wrong job.
--- End quote ---
Right, I would not.  But say you went to a car rental, told them you have seven kids and a wife in tow, and you need a car that can carry all of you.  The agency shows you the paperwork that it is indeed registered to legally carry nine people plus luggage, and you sign the contract.  If they then roll a VW Polo to the door, it is a scam.

That's what we are talking about here.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod