Post #35,735
4/17/02 3:34:00 AM
|
Surely this is a no-brainer !!!
If she or hubby took out a policy & paid the premiums then she would be fully entitled to the payout
If Wal-Mart take out a policy (the word 'secret' policy is pure emotional journalism) & Wal-Mart pay the premiums & are named as beneficiary, what in f*** has that got to do with Mrs
She just seems like so many money grasping grabbing opportunists who are after any cheap quick buck.
If WM & Insurance company do legal business - she is right out of line
Doug M
|
Post #35,747
4/17/02 9:52:47 AM
|
Except for this one quote
Those kinds of policies are not permitted in Texas anyway because the state Legislature did not want to create an incentive for murder or wagering on human life. But many employers continue to buy them, expecting no one will ever find out. If there is someone who stands to make a profit from my death, I think that I should know about that. ===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #35,748
4/17/02 10:34:22 AM
|
Re: Except for this one quote
I agree with your point
"If there is someone who stands to make a profit from my death, I think that I should know about that."
But it is questionable to state 'profit from my death' - that seems more like an opinion or perhaps a doubt.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #35,749
4/17/02 10:45:32 AM
|
?
How is it questionable? If someone has a life insurance policy on me and I die, they get money. That sounds like profit to me. (Unless you're alluding to the fact that I make more money for them as a productive employee than they get from the policy, but that's kind of a stretch.)
PS: Do you have two logins you're using here? 'dmarker' and 'dmarker2'
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #35,821
4/17/02 8:02:56 PM
|
Logins
naw just 1 - dmarker was used at easyboard - when I 1st joind zIwethey dmarker wasn't accepted but I couldn't post hence dmarker & dmarker2
|
Post #35,750
4/17/02 10:48:08 AM
|
Would you prefer your wife stand to profit from your death?
"Honey, this casserole tastes different someho - URK!"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #35,752
4/17/02 11:08:09 AM
|
Yes I would
and she is the sole beneficiary of my life insurance policy. I can change that at any time, if I so choose. And she can take out a policy on me, without my knowledge, because she has a vested interest in me as the finanical provider for her and her children. If we divorce, I can have that information brought out into the open, and I can even demand that the policy be turned over to me.
One thing that I think the story alludes to is the possibility that the policies stay in effect EVEN AFTER you leave Wal-Mart's employ. Why should they profit from your death, when they no longer have any type of attachment to you as an individual? Don't forget, they got caught lying to a widow, first about even having the policy, and then secondly, about the value of the policy.
Oh, and what about the TAX BREAK they received by taking out a life insurance policy on an employee? It may be legal from an accounting standpoint, but it sure is (to me) unethical to reduce your bottom line by insuring an employee without telling him/her and not provoding any benefits to the widow when it comes time to cash in.
lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #35,768
4/17/02 1:11:39 PM
|
Reminds me of the "birthday dirge". :)
Your servants steal
Your wife's untrue
Your children plot to murder you.
Happy Birthday.
Happy Birthday.
:)
But, anyway, yes. You see, if someone dies of strange causes, the spouse may be a suspect. And, it is easy to find out if the spouse gets a big insurance payoff.
Now, if the company I work for is carrying a policy, will anyone know?
And it doesn't have to be outright murder. Simply being sufficiently negligent should, statistically, result in a profit.
And if it doesn't, well, they've already saved money by being negligent.
Mo' Money!
Mo' Money!
Mo' Money!
So, the key is to remove any profit from my death. Therefore, if I haven't taken out a policy and named them as recipient OR I don't owe them money and insurance is part of the contract THEN they should not be allowed to profit from my death.
|
Post #35,781
4/17/02 3:34:56 PM
|
No-brainer for sure - but exactly the other way around.
Look what do you usually insure?
Yeah, stuff[*]. YOUR OWN stuff -- that's *yours* to insure.
You don't have an insurance policy on your neighbour's car, do you?
Or would you feel all right with me taking out a policy on, say, your house?
No, that's just fucking weird -- your neighbour's car isn't yours to insure, and your house isn't mine to insure.
So even apart from the fucking OBVIOUS conflict of interest in profiting from someone's death[**], this is indeed a fucking no-brainer: The employer doesn't OWN his employees LIVES, so they aren't his to insure.
And that whole concept of "insurable interest" is suspect, too: Seems like just a slimy way of sneaking in-effect "ownership" of someone else's life into the picture, without admitting that exactly that is what it really is. There's insurance for everything, in the world of business too (malpractice-suit insurance, anyone?), so why don't they just take out a regular "unforeseen business problem" policy? Then, *if* a death of an employee really does affect their bottom line, they get to try to prove that when they claim it on that policy.
Due diligence on the part of insurance companies would then work in the opposite way of what Brandi describes: "Well, if you have the guys washing skyscraper windows without a safety line, how 'unforeseen' was it really that one of them would fall?", or "Since Dennis was the only guy in the company who knew how that object-oriented library he'd spent the last seven years building really works, even the slightest -- and required -- amount of foresight would have told you you'd be up the creek without a paddle if you didn't do something about his notoriously lax documentation, now that he stepped in front of that bus".
[*]: Which is why the whole concept of "life insurance" is a bit weird in the first place -- but let's not get into that, here and now.
[**]: And how the HELL could you NOT see that, even before Drew's and Brandioch's explanations??? What the fuck are you, a freaking Capitalism-Über-Alles brain-washed Randroid, replying from reflex in stead of reason?!?
Christian R. Conrad
Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #35,796
4/17/02 4:36:46 PM
|
Sounds like 'Dennis' is someone you know
===
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #35,803
4/17/02 4:50:27 PM
|
Naah, just the canonical example of IT management stupidity.
Though it could of course be that I picked a name not too unlike Linus because it's also the canonical example of what might happen to him in various Linux horror scenarios. ("He doesn't even use CVS!", and so on.)
But I really can't say I know him; only met him the once, briefly, when he signed my copy of _Just for fun_.
Christian R. Conrad
Of course, who am I to point fingers? I'm in the "Information Technology" business, prima facia evidence that there's bats in the bell tower. -- [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=27764|Andrew Grygus]
|
Post #35,860
4/18/02 9:29:50 AM
|
Re: but exactly the other way around - Nein, Nyet, No
F****** law is agin ya fer F**** sake.
When did morality (which is typically someone's f****** opinion) ever overule the law. This is the f****** USA fer F**** sake.
S*** man!.
In F****** USA law everywhere but Texas say "F****** policy is allowed"
That is a no F****** brainer
Cheers
Doug Marker (grin)
|
Post #35,955
4/18/02 8:46:10 PM
|
So much for "a nation of laws"
Even where common sense screams at the implications and the cupidity which lies behind the lobbying for that 'law'. Now then - who but a Corp. favors such a law?
{sigh}
So you're right. But the secret policies are wrong. Next.. will the infotainment publicity have effect, as reelection nears? Squeaky wheel - where will this travesty rank with - so very many Others ??
(Imagine.. 'Texas' is marching in a platoon, and the Sgt. says, Ok you loosers, *everyone's* outta step but Private Texas !!)
Ashton
|
