Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

This piece nails what my thoughts have been since about mid to late April, when real data and facts started to emerge and decisions could be based on science and not models.These lockdowns, while not scientifically correct, also disproportionately affect those at the lower end of the economic spectrum. The very same people "far left liberals" pretend to always fight for, are getting devastated , and may not recover.

 

BTW, i really like Muhammad El-Erain, wicked smart dude.

 

 

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-06-01/great-unequalizer

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

 

That makes sense.  Destroy the insurance policy (assuming it covers the loss) for political reasons.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

That makes sense.  Destroy the insurance policy (assuming it covers the loss) for political reasons.  

read somewhere yesterday that a lot of insurance policies do not cover social unrest..not sure if that is accurate or not. . But may be advantages to business owners to have that plan enacted..whats a couple hundreed million thrown on a trillion?

Posted
47 minutes ago, mead107 said:

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

I’d be interested to see if any business property insurance policies even cover social unrest, but assuming that they do, are you suggesting that the building owner shouldn’t make a claim against the policy....and instead  just sit there, with their business destroyed, in hopes of making a statement? Not gonna happen.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’d be interested to see if any business property insurance policies even cover social unrest, but assuming that they do, are you suggesting that the building owner shouldn’t make a claim against the policy....and instead  just sit there, with their business destroyed, in hopes of making a statement? Not gonna happen.

 

Well said.  Nobody complained when they accepted the premiums.  If the policy covers the loss, then it should pay.  Not debatable. 

Posted
Just now, SectionC3 said:

 

Well said.  Nobody complained when they accepted the premiums.  If the policy covers the loss, then it should pay.  Not debatable. 

I’m not sure if people understand how insurance works. You have to make a claim before you get paid. The insurance company doesn’t call you! You call the insurance company.

Posted
1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure if people understand how insurance works. You have to make a claim before you get paid. The insurance company doesn’t call you! You call the insurance company.

 

Yup.  And this idea that business owners and those who have been damaged as a result of the violence shouldn’t get what they paid for is just one more nutty thing in a nutty time.  

 

I’ve been out of the coverage game for awhile, but I suspect that social unrest is an issue with respect to business interruption policies only insofar as unrest that shutters a business won’t trigger coverage (or will trigger an exception), whereas interruption occasioned by physical damage would be covered.  

Posted
1 hour ago, mead107 said:

Insurance companies should not pay for property destroyed by looters. Let the governors pay that told police to stand down. 
 

 

?

They should sue the state and local governments for their gross negligence. Then again, maybe they will prefer a bailout when the time is right.

Posted
1 minute ago, Reality Check said:

They should sue the state and local governments for their gross negligence. Then again, maybe they will prefer a bailout when the time is right.

 

Sounds like a plan.  Maybe the next time it gets cold they can light some money on fire to get heat, too.  Both plans are equally wasteful. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Sounds like a plan.  Maybe the next time it gets cold they can light some money on fire to get heat, too.  Both plans are equally wasteful. 

True. The Democrats have mastered the art of wasting money in these cities. What is your solution for the unfunded pension liabilities? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

True. The Democrats have mastered the art of wasting money in these cities. What is your solution for the unfunded pension liabilities? 

 

I didn’t realize that we were talking  about that.  Last I checked you suggested filing frivolous lawsuits against municipalities.  It was a dumb idea then, and it’s a dumb idea now, a few minutes later. 

Posted
1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

I didn’t realize that we were talking  about that.  Last I checked you suggested filing frivolous lawsuits against municipalities.  It was a dumb idea then, and it’s a dumb idea now, a few minutes later. 

Hoax. I suggested that insurance companies file frivolous lawsuits against municipalities. Words matter. I am glad that we agree that these municipalities have zero liability to protect the property of its citizens. Thank you.

Posted

Was it Ever Really About the Virus?

by Brian C. Joondeph

 

Original Article

 

For the past four months, Americans have endured a constant barrage of news and fear porn about the Wuhan coronavirus. The country has been locked down as tightly as Anthony Weiner’s infamous laptop computer, now finally starting to slowly reopen. We have heard about ventilators and ICU beds, social distancing and masks, death counts and vaccines, all to the point of over-saturation. Fox News ran a nearly constant death count side bar and CNN blamed the virus, the resulting economic shutdown, and every other bit of trouble in the world on their least favorite president ever.

 

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...