Private Sector screwing up

#128
#128
BigPapaVol said:
How could anyone prove it either way?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
ummmmmmmmm, when somebody admits to murdering somebody they go to jail. that is evidence.

how would this be any different if somebody with power with the company involved with the peasant insurance said there was no consent???
 
#130
#130
Cash Vallin said:
ummmmmmmmm, when somebody admits to murdering somebody they go to jail. that is evidence.

how would this be any different if somebody with power with the company involved with the peasant insurance said there was no consent???
Click to expand...

Because they wouldn't have gone to court to say that, period. The peasant insurance company simply can't have had that answer. Anything they had to say was for show.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#131
#131
if you're being sued and then subpoenaed, you have no choice but to tell the truth... you know that is unless you're unethical..
 
#132
#132
Cash Vallin said:
if you're being sued and then subpoenaed, you have no choice but to tell the truth... you know that is unless you're unethical..
Click to expand...

Sure they told the truth, but it wasn't germane. The insurance buyer is the outfit that needed the consent and is the defendant.

The insurance company could only say that they didn't know at the very most.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#136
#136
Cash Vallin said:
yeah, just form your opinion based on nothing... Good Call!!
Click to expand...

Seriously? Nothing would be where you are with your moral grndstanfing over nothing and your fantasyworld altruism. I'm making a reasoned guess given what I know of the business and what I read of this one.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#138
#138
the funny part about this long thread is that insurance contracts do not make companies money. they are for protection of unexpected events. you know the same way insurance is for the individual. by cash's theory we'd all get rich taking out insurance on every person we know.
 
#139
#139
droski said:
the funny part about this long thread is that insurance contracts do not make companies money. they are for protection of unexpected events. you know the same way insurance is for the individual. by cash's theory we'd all get rich taking out insurance on every person we know.
Click to expand...

without their consent :eek:k:
 
#140
#140
droski said:
the funny part about this long thread is that insurance contracts do not make companies money. they are for protection of unexpected events. you know the same way insurance is for the individual. by cash's theory we'd all get rich taking out insurance on every person we know.
Click to expand...
so you're telling me this peasant insurance isn't making the company money???? Come on, man. If it wasn't making them money, they'd scrap it in a heart beat.
 
#141
#141
Cash Vallin said:
so you're telling me this peasant insurance isn't making the company money???? Come on, man. If it wasn't making them money, they'd scrap it in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

why do you own life insurance? does it make you money? you own it because if you die you want money available to pay for the lost income. the exact same rationale is used in business for the loss of key employees.
 
#142
#142
KEY employees being your key word.... the hourly folks don't see a dime of this, yet they still have this insurance put on them. give me a break, man, if an hourly employee dies, these companies don't lose a dime. they can be replaced within a day.
 
#143
#143
very few companies get insurance on hourly employees unless their contract requires an annuity to their decedents. once again. why aren't you buying insurance on all your friends if this is such a great money making scheme?
 
#144
#144
Cash Vallin said:
KEY employees being your key word.... the hourly folks don't see a dime of this, yet they still have this insurance put on them. give me a break, man, if an hourly employee dies, these companies don't lose a dime. they can be replaced within a day.
Click to expand...

First, the employee must give his consent and those whining that they didn't happen to be suing for some free money, go figure.

Second, do the math. Some life insurer out there is willing to write this business, meaning they believe it profitable to them to take the insured's premium to pay off upon death of covered employee. How can both sides of this thing think it's a good deal? How does it work out as this home run for both parties?
 
#145
#145
occasionally I get company owners who bought these whole life policies for estate purposes. many want to buy them for their company as well because of the guaranteed return. they don't realize that anything, but term, is a rip off unless you have estate issues. a less reputable guy would gladly sell companies insurance like this since you can easily get six figure commisions on 10mil+ policies.
 
#146
#146
Cash Vallin said:
KEY employees being your key word.... the hourly folks don't see a dime of this, yet they still have this insurance put on them. give me a break, man, if an hourly employee dies, these companies don't lose a dime. they can be replaced within a day.
Click to expand...

so if these employees can be replaced within a day why should they be paid more? Seems to me they should be glad to be making what they are
 
#149
#149
lets see, some of you republicans are saying it does make the company money... yet, some of you are now saying it doesn't make the company money... Which way is it???
 
#150
#150
ha, you know you can't use the college argument unless it helps your cause... i've used it many times, but when it doesn't help the republicans' ideas on here, they say i'm brainwashed by liberal professors... the hyprocrisy is amazing on here!!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top