The New York times did a fairly decent write up on this.

What we're seeing here is the logical extension of a market in terms of the Corporate Profit interest. The Home Equity market exploded a few years ago when this was made an offical product, and I can promise you the same thing will happen here. These so-called Financial wizards have found a product similar to the Mortgage security that went bust when the economic recession caused people to forfit their payments. This is actually a much safer product, as people will always die. People taking out a Life Insurance Policy usually do so to benefit their families - as the product was intended - and so I don't see too many people opting for this.

The problem will arise if more and more people begin taking our policies as a future investment which will come to fruitation once the policy has reached the point where it can be bought out by these funds, and as such the Life Insurance companies are going to be paying out exponentially more and more money with less and less capital. Now, people will argue that it would take an unfathomably large amount of greed to bleed dry these insurers; which is what they said about the housing Market before it went under. And when Life Insurance goes under - and it's a very, very safe bet it will if this goes ahead - it's going to sting because of the sheer amount of money that's going to be legally liable out of their empty Bank Accounts. $500,000,000,000.00 is the estimate amount of money today; it'll make the Housing Market Collapse look like a playground skirmish over lunch money.

Now, I don't think it's fair to say that these are Death Panels; they're not picking who will live and die, as your thread title would hint towards. They're merely betting on who they think will die faster. Is it immoral? Of course it is, however it's not illegal. If they owned Medical Clinics and began denying treatment to people with Life Insurance and then began buying those people's policies, then you've got your "Real Life Death Panels". Inciting people to fear and anger isn't going to help anyone here.

Death Bonds: Too big to fail. Too easy to hide improperly-rated securities (which is the idea no matter what they say), and as the insurance industry is already stating, this is about "subprime life" insurance settlements. A nice little play on words there from the insurance guys.

It is inevitable that Americans will be hurt again by Wall Street, who does not create products that require materials and craftsmen, but rather operates like a casino.

What's frightening are the implications of a billion dollar market whose profits rely on people dying early. Fund owners are - for the sake of profit - intrinsically opposed to every measure that prolongs the life of insured people.

Even more perverse: If a listed coorporation specializes in life settlements, then it is by law required to lower humanity's life expectancy.

This doesn't mean that coorporations suddenly hire hitmen to frag grandmas around the country, but it would mean that they oppose every bill that would make life better.

Welcome to Dystopia.

In 96, i had to buy back a life insurance that i had contracted for in 75 (lose a job, find another, lose it too, find another, lose in an everlasting loop of COSTS of working, duly inflated by renting a place to bunk & refined oil for a car... gotta show up in the mornings and return home to sleep). Net return cash was a whopping 1750$; calculate all you want -- 21Yx12Mx14$=3528. I shoulda died, cuz 10,000$ worth of coverage was reasonably good in these times.

Now, in an even better scam by corporate takeovers of the bythen deregulated system(s) in Canada... Metropolitan was bought by Clarica (99) which in turn was bought by SunLife(04). Got me a renewable 30,000$ safety net for 20$M (in 99, think i had a choice?)... last month i was forced to cut that to 15,000$ for 46$M. For a non-smoker it's 35$M, btw -- lungs & cancer can kill someone? That's what your countries health care systems would like YOU to believe.

Wanna know why?

Aging & estimated risks. While cash disappears from a bank account. Accidentally yours, no pre-medical conditions... just your usual zombie human eventually tagged for burial fees.

That's what i got for jobs hopping in as many global consequences as this stupid planet of a world could maintain for PROFITS.

Transplant organs, pay the bills, gobble pills, gamble for a few months more or less. Crooks (as in Insurable gimmicks of the worthy evaluation of many lives) win and they've got a properly signed contract for absolutely legal frauds. Fiscality at your service, for a price.

Adam Smith (and anyone else financially solvable when fate struck back for a quick refund) would spin in his tomb or should i stress, his own precious vault of unspent value.

Welcome to Casino Capitalism.

there were groups doing this in the early 90s on a limited basis in that, for a cash payment to the insured, they would buy beneficiary status from people who were dying of aids.

And here we go with the fear mongering and inciting people to anger. This is why it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion on these types of issues. Looking at the American Health Care debate we see a very similar type of 'discussion' taking place. Hell, even this thread's title is trying to link the two issues together with mention of "REAL LIFE DEATH PANELS". If the only way you can openly discuss these issues is through misinformation, I believe this thread should be locked here and now before to devolves further than this.

Ignoring the fact that Life Insurance companies have been gambling with people's lives for decades, the difference here is that the funds are going to profit when people die, however this is so far from your 'Dystopia' you've failed to the describe that even attempting to use the term to describe what's happening or what might happen negates anything meangingful you have to say. Seriously, your take on this issue is so distorted and warped I honestly find it difficult to believe you're saying it without some kind of punch line that I'm simply not picking up on.

People have to voluntarily sign up for this - they have to sell their policies by their own decision and as such can shop around if they so desire to find the best possible deal for themselves. If they don't want to sell their policies, they don't have to. This means that people are going to profit by placing the risk on the funds themselves; if someone dies in a manner which voids the policy, the funds receives nothing - and Life Insurance companies make a lot of money screwing hard working people out of their rightfully entitled payout figures so I don't think it's going to be as profitable as people believe. At least, initially.

The issue with this isn't the impact on the policy holders - it's the impact it's going to have on the Insurance Companies as operating in this model is not a sustainable investment; it's going to bleed Insurance Companies dry until they crash and burn and take the economy with them. It's the Housing Market Collapse all over again. Financial operators have learnt nothing, and are walking - deliberatly, I might add - into the same situation; a market with little regulation with a plan to rape it, destroy it and leave Tax Payers fitting the bill.


No, it's not a legal requirement, rather a mandate applied to them if their funds are owned by more than one people to act for the sole benefit of the fund. This is also the same mandate applied to the CEO and Board of any Private Health Care company, who - in their own best interest - must oppose any improvements to the Public Health Care system as this is their direct opposition. In increase in government provided health care decreases their market share and they must increase their care while lowering their prices to compete thus negatively impacting upong their Profit margin. This is why Health Care reform is so openly opposed in the USA of right now - it has nothing to do with the impact on the public, and everything to do with the impact on the Profit Interest of the Private Health Care system. And people like you, with their completely uneducated and unfounded opinions, are furthering their cause and hampering any real improvements that can be made by spreading this misinformation.

Seriously man, think before you click the post button.

Huh?

Care to make a real sentence out of that?

Um.

I think I lost you.

Please explain to me what my take on this issue is and how I warped it, why I'm uneducated and why my opinions are unfounded and whose cause I'm furthering with what misinformation.

I kinda feel like you're biting the wrong leg.

You likened this situation to being, or creating, a Dystopian society. This type of business behaviour has existed for decades. It has not created a Dystopian society. Your use of the word "Dystopia" demonstrates your lack of understanding on this topic and your only-to-happy attitude of jumping way off on a tangent.
TL;DR: You don't know what you're talking about.




See the below:









I thought this much was obvious.

Someone who understands the topic at hand wouldn't post statements such as

as some kind of fact. Thus, by logicial deduction, I can ascertain that you neither understand the complexities of the topics nor why there is an issue here. Your lack of understanding on this issue begs the question why did you make this thread?


The misinformation are the statements I've quoted thus far, which you stated as fact when they're not. The cause your furthering is the use of fear to incite people to anger on this topic - exactly as was done in the 'discussion' on American Health Care Reform.

Sheesh ...

A listed company is by law required to maximize profits for the shareholder. That - in fact - is a fact. If that companies business was maintaining a profitable life settlement fund then it has to generate profits by using it's assets. Lowering life expectancy is one viable strategy in that case. This example served to emphasize the perverse effects of the current form of capitalism. And you deducted from that my lack of understanding?

And the statements you quoted are valid. You didn't even refute them apart from calling me stupid because of those, which apparently is proof that my statements are wrong. Circular reasoning and not very polite.

And come on, "Welcome to Dystopia", I'm not even allowed to say that when I'm talking about a form of capitalism where corporations profit from people dying as soon as possible? You criticize me for using that word inappropriatly and then take my scenario to predict a total collapse of the economy?

What are all those personal attacks for when we even agree that these life settlement funds are immoral?

 

No, Aroddo, it's not a fact.  Could you please stop pulling that horse shit out of your ass?

 

It's like you read some communist dictator's explanation of capitalism.  You're the most ignorant airhead I've ever seen pretend to know a thing about economics.  Go read a Dick and Jane book to improve your grasp and then work your way up to something really hard, like a stocks for dummies book.