One thing about insurance: IF there is a chance the company will suffer definitive losses to the point of bankruptcy, they would want to limit the exposure. That is what insurance entails. After all there is one calculation that drives the business: premium paid/damages paid.
On a more abstract level, this may translate into future premiums (reward) against future damages (risk). This is a risk assessment.
What I find curious, is that I know of only one RISK MANAGER who spoke out against the vaxx. ......me. Because not taking the vaxx is one sure way to limit exposure to risk territory that is totally unknown, uncontrolled and potentially devastating to any insurer ....Not a peep was heard.
Since the game is continuing as it does, there is no much more clarity and solid ground to consider the premium vs risk in cases where clients have taken the vaxx ....
for instance: car insurance, travel insurance, life-insurance, health-insurance, whereas those who have not taken the vaxx, should actually be rewarded with a lower premium ... or better coverage. Instead, the tune played in the media was to punish those unvaxxed with higher premiums and lower coverage.
Apart from the premium vs damages discussion, there are some other ways for insurers to satisfy their shareholders and return a nice return on investment:
sell policies that are branded. The actual insurance is done somewhere else. This means the company you think is your insurer is nothing more than a paper pusher and living of the commission.
sell a policy that is in part or in whole re-insured. The beauty of this is, that should push come to shove, the insurance company has a backstop with another one, like Swiss Re.
limit exposure by expanding exclusions worded such that it leaves enough ambiguity to make the impression of coverage subject to interpretation by the insurance company.
step down the willingness to pay-out and drag payment c.q. decision to pay out over time.
Now comes the question: do you need insurance? Or rather, do you need insurance at this juncture in time?
There are two ways to mitigate risk:
insure, making a third party liable to pay damages.
have your own solution.
We discussed number 1. Number 2 has several options:
Have sufficient funds of your own to cover any damage, or only those damages and risks you think are worthy of risking.
a.Bonding. Car insurers often work with a bonding card, a green card up to the limit of your policy coverage.So, you could arrange for that yourself.
2.b. be on the look-out for solutions to damages that are much cheaper and ( in case of health) probably better for you.
Insurance came from international maritime trade, and is already very old. As far as we known, and have it on paper, at least 900 years. Pooling resources to cover a loss is not a bad idea. It serves both the insured as well as the investor/ guarantor.
The establishment of companies being a person is the fundamental problem in the system, as it has introduced moral hazard and psychopathic calculation with the lives and livelihoods of people. It also has totally subverted the meaning of rights, as companies now want to claim 1st amendment rights. And, given the 2007-2009 money crisis: has introduced a lack of accountability in playing casino.
I think there are more people in the insurance business who have personal concerns about the vax but my theory is they don't want to talk about it because how many cowardly CEOs made their employees take it under the guise of a mandate? The problem is, it ain't going away.
One thing about insurance: IF there is a chance the company will suffer definitive losses to the point of bankruptcy, they would want to limit the exposure. That is what insurance entails. After all there is one calculation that drives the business: premium paid/damages paid.
On a more abstract level, this may translate into future premiums (reward) against future damages (risk). This is a risk assessment.
What I find curious, is that I know of only one RISK MANAGER who spoke out against the vaxx. ......me. Because not taking the vaxx is one sure way to limit exposure to risk territory that is totally unknown, uncontrolled and potentially devastating to any insurer ....Not a peep was heard.
Since the game is continuing as it does, there is no much more clarity and solid ground to consider the premium vs risk in cases where clients have taken the vaxx ....
for instance: car insurance, travel insurance, life-insurance, health-insurance, whereas those who have not taken the vaxx, should actually be rewarded with a lower premium ... or better coverage. Instead, the tune played in the media was to punish those unvaxxed with higher premiums and lower coverage.
Apart from the premium vs damages discussion, there are some other ways for insurers to satisfy their shareholders and return a nice return on investment:
sell policies that are branded. The actual insurance is done somewhere else. This means the company you think is your insurer is nothing more than a paper pusher and living of the commission.
sell a policy that is in part or in whole re-insured. The beauty of this is, that should push come to shove, the insurance company has a backstop with another one, like Swiss Re.
limit exposure by expanding exclusions worded such that it leaves enough ambiguity to make the impression of coverage subject to interpretation by the insurance company.
step down the willingness to pay-out and drag payment c.q. decision to pay out over time.
Now comes the question: do you need insurance? Or rather, do you need insurance at this juncture in time?
There are two ways to mitigate risk:
We discussed number 1. Number 2 has several options:
Insurance came from international maritime trade, and is already very old. As far as we known, and have it on paper, at least 900 years. Pooling resources to cover a loss is not a bad idea. It serves both the insured as well as the investor/ guarantor.
The establishment of companies being a person is the fundamental problem in the system, as it has introduced moral hazard and psychopathic calculation with the lives and livelihoods of people. It also has totally subverted the meaning of rights, as companies now want to claim 1st amendment rights. And, given the 2007-2009 money crisis: has introduced a lack of accountability in playing casino.
I think there are more people in the insurance business who have personal concerns about the vax but my theory is they don't want to talk about it because how many cowardly CEOs made their employees take it under the guise of a mandate? The problem is, it ain't going away.