Monsterous Logic: Anything including people and property, that is Insured, is immediately Expendable

Explanation: Does being insured mean you, or the insured property,... are immediately expendable?

If Yes, can you please explain why?

If No, can you please explain the logical fallacy?

CAVEAT:- I agree that to act on, or off of, the logic proposed, would be completely unreasonable!

Personal Disclosure: Seeking flaws in the logic I proposed in this threads title! Please enlighten me!

reply to post by OmegaLogos


errr...does not compute.

Care to simplify this post for us dumb ATS-ers?

Who said it was expendable?

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Explanation: St*rred!

Thanks for your query.

Nobody is saying it ... yet!

Personal Disclosure: I am asking, not saying, is the logic proposed in this threads title irrefutable?

Interesting thought. Not sure if it can be 100% either way. I just asked myself, 'If the Deepwater Horizon project was NOT insured, would they still have cut corners in safety procedures leading to the disaster?'. Since entities like BP are only interested in the bottom line, whatever makes them money the fastest will dictate their direction. If the rig/project was not insured then pumping oil would be the only way to make money, therefore I think they would have followed every safety precaution to ensure that would happen.

Just my two cents....

reply to post by OmegaLogos


An interesting question. Rather odd, actually, but I'll play along anyway. An insurance policy on property only pays out once the insured thing is damaged. Life insurance is the human equivalent.

Insurance on property would only pay out the estimated value of the item at the time of the claim. The value is usually less than it was bought for (And/or it's adjusted for market pricing), so the payout usually won't by a replacement item. This makes the original, insured item not so expendable doesn't it?

Life insurance is naturally never going to "replace" that exact human being that's being insured, and there for makes the question of expandability a huge no. It's main purpose is of course to pay for the cost of funeral, medical bills, etc,etc..

This is at least what I think you where asking on the surface. I suspect a deeper question in there, but I can't be sure.. Ask upfront.

reply to post by OmegaLogos


You will have to excuse me for not properly understanding your input...but I will give my op...


I don't feel it is true. If I insure something...it means I care about loosing it, hence it is quite the opposite...therefore not expendable. It is a way of insuring you get compensated for the potential loss.

By your logic I would say...that which you do not insure, you don't care about...and is expendable to you.

This is merely commenting on your statements. In reality, I hate insurance companies, and insure only what I must. And that is under laws in my country...a car. I hate giving those pricks any money if I don't need to.

edit: Think it just settled on me what you were trying to say. You are talking about misuse of insurance. Insuring something which you tend to destroy or lose just to cash in on it. These things happen in a money grabbing society unfortunately...we live in one. But to make it a rule is harsh.

There are millions of people paying insurance out of general concern for their property/lives.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

Explanation: St*rred!

Thanks for your query.

Nobody is saying it ... yet!

Personal Disclosure: I am asking, not saying, is the logic proposed in this threads title irrefutable?

Ahh, I see what your getting at now I think. No, I can't argue with that logic. As painful as it is for me to think of humans as expendable. It's the very nature of insurance, I think. To make the loss of someone or something all the more... affordable, and there for bearable in some respects. Looked at in this way, I see your point, and damn you for making it.

I’m not sure I follow. But I’ll take a shot at this as someone who works in Insurance.

Insurance Companies provide a risk transfer mechanism for people, so that for a fee, you’re no longer financially viable for the risk of what you insured against.

House insurance so you no longer hold the risk of living in your house.

Car insurance so that you no longer hold the risk of driving your car.

Is the person or property we insure expendable? No, because surely that would mean that if they were “expended” for lack of a better word, we’d have to pay out, and that’s entirely the opposite of what we want.
And due to the contract wording, we have to insure for the dates proposed on the policy, meaning we couldn’t cancel the policy at a whim mid term. So either way they’re not expendable.

This could just be me not understanding you question, but Insurers go out the way to make sure you’re less of a risk so that there’s a smaller chance of a claim. We wouldn’t want to make you expendable in any way, not once we've taken you on as a risk.

reply to post by Inquisitive1


but the word used is "expendable", and it does not fit in the logic the OP tried to convey. Something expendable is something which you have no use for...something which you wouldn't mind losing.

Explanation: St*rs for everyone above this post!

OK ... 1stly THANK YOU ALL for participating!

Personal Disclosure: This 'logic' came to me in as a BOOMING voice [my own] in a dream and I do have mental health issue and I do see myself as an unreasonable monster.

However I have no intent to act on or off of such logic for the time being!

In my head if one is insured, then yes they ARE expendable ... immediatey so. The insurance covers their loss and therefor there IS NO LOSS.

If it doesn't, then one didn't get enough insurance, and thats another issue that has nothing to do with whether the logic proposed is water tight and irrefutable.

I am not expendable because I AM NOT Insured. My loss can not be covered ... and besides I'm priceless!

I have my answer. And yes damn me!

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by Inquisitive1

 

but the word used is "expendable", and it does not fit in the logic the OP tried to convey. Something expendable is something which you have no use for...something which you wouldn't mind losing.

I know.. this is the problem. Say I insure a huge yacht (I wish..). Obviously I'd like to keep my huge yacht, and insured it for that simple reason. Then lets say my yacht gets damaged and sinks in some random freak occurrence to which I'm not at fault for.. I suspect I'll get money for it. This makes the pain of losing my super cool, huge yacht less painful because now I can use that money to fish out and fix my old yacht, or purchase a new yacht. this is all in theory of course.

thing is, this "expandability" only applies to items. And not just items, but Items currently on the market... Like super cool, huge yachts.. Can't do this for grandpa, but then again, we all die. We are essentially already expiring. Some slower than others. While there is nothing more valuable than human life, Insurance just makes it all less of a burden financially.. In this way I see what the OP is hinting at..

reply to post by OmegaLogos

In my head if one is insured, then yes they ARE expendable ... immediatey so. The insurance covers their loss and therefor there IS NO LOSS.

but what is a fair price for a human life? You're saying if your life is insured and you get killed, somehow your folks (or anyone who loves you) didn't lose anything 'cos insurance covered your life?

There is always loss. If your house gets burned down, you will get compensated for the price of the real estate...but you still lose valuable emotional things. Maybe it was a house you grew up in...spent your most beautiful childhood days...maybe you built it yourself ? You can not compensate ever for that. No money can.

So in terms of your thinking, I don't agree. There is always loss...but it is only more easy to deal with it if you at least get financially compensated. The key word is "compensate". You don't get the same thing you lost.

So, NO. The house I built with my own two hands is not expendable because I insured it. My life is not expendable because I'm insured.

Your logic would be valid if we were robots without feelings and emotions.

The flaw is that resources are finite.

Once everything and everyone that had been insured was expended there would be
no one left, save only lonely person...and he would be left holding a rather large stack of
bills to reimburse...

...of course, there would be no one around to pay

Just an aside to add to your thread...

Companies will sometimes purchase life insurance policies for their employees with the
company named as the beneficiary. It is a common enough practice as to have its own
acronym, COLI...Corporate Owned Life Insurance.......scary thought isn't it.

Gives a whole new meaning to the word "Axed".

reply to post by OmegaLogos


no - as , though insured - no one considers the mona lisa - expendable - do they ?

reply to post by rival


not really - i once found my self in a position where my employers had 2 life insurance policies on me

1 - to pay my estate for the loss of me

2 - to pay them for the loss of my profitability - and the embugerance of replacing me