I have been discussing this with people, and think this is a relevant place to discuss it further. What I think will happen is that insurance companies will suddenly come out with a statement of having “enough policies on the books that we are suspending new applications for a year until we get our policy numbers back down”. This will be their way of getting ahead of the fact that claims are going to skyrocket from vaccine deaths without outright saying it. Once vaccine deaths become common knowledge, then they will start issuing new policies only for unvaccinated. You already have to give a blood and urine sample to buy life insurance, so they will test to see if you were vaccinated so you can’t lie.
I believe they will have to try to fight claims from vaccinated deaths because they could be such a financial burden it could put them out of business. I know people like to hate on insurance companies, but at their root they do provide a critical service - allowing people to pool risk. I think the waiver people sign to get vaccinated will be used by life insurance companies to avoid paying those claims.
Insurance pede here.
Regarding suspension of applications; this can happen but not quite the way you think. If the company feels they have took much risk exposure, what generally happens is a tightening of underwriting and/or plan changes. Awhile back, there was one company that had "the big man" program - very generous build tables. After awhile, they had too many big men and overnight it went 180 in the other direction. That is a more radical example - most are more subtle. By the way, this is normal business practice to mix up the risk pool from time to time. It is like a recipe - you don't want too much salt, etc.
Part of the issue is you have to be able to show proof of mortality- you can't just pull stuff out of a hat. Example: travel to Israel used to be hard to underwrite, especially when things were hot in Gaza Strip, etc. I think it was Allstate who got sued in California and the result was that for any CA case a carrier had to be able to show proof of mortality for an adverse underwriting decision based upon travel to Israel. (I remember shopping a case out and John Hancock told me they had proof.)
I don't see this happening. First, the test for CV itself is half ass, but more importantly, it costs money. If anything, it would be a database search, similar to the Rx checks they are running now. Carriers are moving away from physical requirements because of expense.
All policies gave a 2-year contestibility clause; once the policy is inforce for two years, any death occurring after that two year period, the benefits are paid - stroke, car accident, suicide, etc. In the first two years, death by suicide does not pay. Death by other means gives the company the right to review- they want to ensure no fraud, that you didn't forget to mention your recent cancer diagnosis, etc. That said, in the event there was a large number of claims for which the company did not reserve properly (because by law they have to hold adequate reserves to pay claims) every state has a state guaranty fund which pays up to I think $300K. But if we get to the point where the state guaranty funds are paying, we have much bigger problems.
FYI - trade journal article I read recently is that they are not asking about vaccine status- they will ask if you have had CV. If it is recent, they will hold off writing coverage until fully recovered.
Thanks - everything you said seems accurate.
With that being said, do you have an opinion on how “vaccine” deaths will effect the insurance business (assuming you believe it is/is going to kill people)?
I see it being an add on like a co-morbidity to whatever the underlying cause of death is. The myocarditis issues popping up are the ones that are on my radar because of the increased risk of heart attacks.
Example: when you look at a diabetic in terms of underwriting, you look at blood sugar & A1C to see how well it is controlled, but you also look at ancillary factors; build, family history, medications, blood pressure etc. The more negatives, the more likely a chance for an adverse event and you rate accordingly. If they can show the direct correlation of vaccine and Myocarditis for example, then it would come into play, but just on its own, no. At least with what we currently know.
Ultimately, think of it from the perspective that carriers don't by claims.