Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DEAD PEASANT INSURANCE purchased by these 215 companies on their regular employees

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:45 AM
Original message
DEAD PEASANT INSURANCE purchased by these 215 companies on their regular employees

Gee. If corporations are taking out Dead Peasant Insurance policies, thereby planning to cash in if their workers die on the job rather than after retirement, doesn't that reflect a considered, statistical and actuarial judgment on the part of these companies that their CORPORATE HEALTH INSURANCE won't keep people alive???

After all, they're literally betting that they can "beat the actuaries" at the life insurance companies, and that over the long haul their workers will die faster than expected.

The Dishonor Roll of 215 Corporations Believed by Law Firm to Have Purchased Dead Peasant Insurance on Regular Workers

(Note: by definition, these policies are on regular workers, and are not "Key Person" Insurance, usually used to buy out a stock interest in the event of sudden death in a closely held corporation)



SOURCE: http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/which-employers-bought-... /
* ADAC Laboratories
* Advanced Telecommunication Corp.
* Aeroquip Vickers Inc.
* Alabama Power Co.
* Alfa Corp.
* Allegheny Technologies Inc.
* Allergan Inc.
* Allfirst Financial Inc.
* American Business Products, Inc.
* American Electric Power
* American Express Co.
* American Greetings Corp.
* American Management Systems Inc.
* American Seafoods Group LLC
* Ameritech Corp.
* Amerus Group Co.
* Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
* Appalachian Power Co.
* Arch Chemical
* Aristech Chemical Corp.
* AT&T Communications
* Atlantic Richfield Co.
* Avery Dennison Corp
* Avon Products Inc.
* B. F. Goodrich Company
* Ball Corporation
* Bank Boston
* Bank Of America
* Bank One Corp.
* Barnett Banks Inc.
* Bassett Furniture Industries Inc.
* Be Aerospace Inc.
* Bear Stearns Companies
* Bellsouth Corporation
* Boise Cascade Corp.
* Boston Company
* Boston Federal
* Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
* Camelot Music, Inc.
* Carolina Power & Light Co.
* Carpenter Technology Corp.
* Catskill Financial Corp.
* Central Power & Light Co.
* Ch2m Hill Companies Ltd.
* Charming Shoppes, Inc.
* Checkfree Corp.
* Chemical Banking Corporation
* Citibank, N.A.
* Citizens Bank
* Clark Inc.
* Clorox Company
* CNF Inc.
* Coca-Cola Company
* Columbus Southern Power Co.
* Commercial Intertech Corp.
* Compass Bank (Florida & Alabama)
* Computer Technology Associates Inc.
* Consolidated Natural Gas Co.
* Consolidated Rail Corporation
* Cox Enterprises, Inc.
* CTA Inc.
* Cymer Inc.
* Diamond Shamrock Inc.
* Diebold Inc.
* Dime Bancorp Inc.
* Dow Chemical
* Earle M. Jorgensen Co.
* Eastman Kodak Company
* Eaton Corp.
* ECC Capital Corp.
* Enserch Corp.
* F&M Bancorp
* FiberMark Inc.
* Figgie International Inc.
* Fina Oil & Chemical Company
* First Bank System Inc.
* First Commonwealth
* First Midwest Bancorp Inc.
* Fleet Bank
* FleetBoston Financial Corp.
* Flightsafety International Inc.
* Frontier Bank
* Fulton Financial Corp.
* GATX Corporation
* Georgia Power Co.
* GNC Corp.
* Great Plains Energy Inc.
* GTE Corporation
* Gulf Power Co.
* HCR Manor Care Inc
* Hechinger Company
* Heritage Commerce Corp.
* Herman Miller Inc.
* Hershey Foods Corporation
* Hillenbrand Industries, Inc.
* Hosiery Corporation of America
* Houghton Mifflin
* Household Finance
* Hovnanian Enterprises Inc.
* Hughes Supply Inc
* ICI Americas, Inc.
* Idaho Power Company
* IKON Office Solutions Inc.
* Indiana Michigan Power Co.
* Integra Bank Corp.
* Intermark Inc.
* Iowa First Bancshares Corp.
* Iroquois Bancorp Inc.
* J Jill Group Inc.
* JP Morgan Chase & Co.
* Kansas City Power & Light
* Kansas Gas & Electric Co.
* Keithley Instruments Inc.
* Kentucky Power Co.
* Keycorp Ohio
* Kimberly Clark
* Korn Ferry International
* Laser Master Intl. Inc.
* Linens N Things Inc.
* LKQ Corp.
* Louisiana Pacific Corp.
* Manor Care Inc.
* Marriott International Inc.
* McDonnell Douglas Corp.
* Media General Inc.
* Medicalcontrol Inc.
* Menasha Corporation
* MidAmerican Energy Co.
* Miix Group Inc.
* Mississippi Power Co.
* MNC Financial Inc.
* Mueller Industries Inc.
* National City Corporation
* NationsBank
* Nestle Enterprises
* Norfolk Southern Corp.
* Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
* Northern States Power Co.
* Ohio Power Co.
* Old National
* Olin Corporation
* Owens & Minor Inc.
* PacifiCorp
* Panera Bread Co.
* Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company
* Parker Hannifin Corp.
* Penn Treaty American Corp.
* Penns Woods Bancorp Inc.
* Phibro Animal Health Corp.
* Philipp Brothers Chemicals Inc.
* Phoenix Companies Inc.
* Pinnacle Financial Services Inc.
* Portland General Electric
* Potlatch Corporation
* PPG Industries
* Procter & Gamble Company
* PSS World Medical Inc.
* Public Service Co. of New Mexico
* Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
* Public Service Enterprise Group
* Questech Inc.
* R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company
* Ruddick Corp.
* Ryder System Inc.
* Sallie Mae (Stud Ln Mktg Assoc.)
* Savannah Electric & Power Co.
* Sequa Corp.
* Service Merchandise Co., Inc.
* Shearson Mortgage
* Sherwin-Williams
* Sky Chefs
* Smart & Final Inc.
* Smith Barney
* Sonoco Products Co.
* Southwest Bank
* Southwest Water Co.
* Southwestern Bell Corp.
* Southwestern Electric Power Co.
* Southwestern Public Service Co.
* Star Banc Corp.
* Stauffer Management Company
* Steelcase Inc.
* Sturgis Bancorp Inc.
* Summit Bank of N.J.
* Swank, Inc.
* Tellabs Inc.
* Tenet Healthcare Corp.
* Texas Eastern Transmission Corp.
* Tompkins Trustco Inc.
* TXU Corp.
* TYCO International
* UniFirst Corp.
* Union Bank
* United National Bancorp
* Urocor Inc.
* Vineyard National Bancorp
* W. R. Grace & Company
* Wachovia Corporation
* Walgreen Company
* Wal-Mart Stores
* Walt Disney
* Wangs International, Inc.
* Wells Fargo, N.A.
* West Coast Bancorp
* West Texas Utilities Co.
* Westar Energy Inc.
* Western Aire Chef Inc
* Western Resources, Inc.
* Westpoint Pepperell
* Winn Dixie
* Winnebago Industries Inc.
* Woolworth Corporation
* Xcel Energy Inc.
* York Water Co.
* Zale Corp.
See: http://deadpeasantinsurance.com/which-employers-bought-... /

If anyone would be so kind as to find or calculate how many workers these 215 large corporations employ, that would be a very interesting figure. (We can then discount it somewhat in the event some have not insured all their employees as Dead Peasants, but just some...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why, I think this would make a great novel!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Truth is stranger than fiction. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. How so?
Dead peasant zombies return to get their revenge on CEOs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slampoet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. It's a Russian Lit joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
74. It's a Russian Lit prophecy
"Dead Souls" by Nikolai Gogol.

Landowners where "valued" according to the number of "souls" who lived on their land (and they were thus responsible for). THey received funds and influence based upon this assessment. Of course, everyone "gamed" the system, and so very few "souls" were recorded as having ever died. These "dead souls" made the lion's share of many a landowner's wealth.

Of course, one can also see these "benefactors" betting on the likelihood of a peasant's longevity, lack of requirement of a death certification, etc., in their choices of what land to purchase or trade with other landowners.

Very prescient.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Yeah: Novel plot: Employees take out a contract of their own, on corporations. Let it be. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #7
109. And the list reaches 216, with addition of Amegy Bank ($1.5 million policy in litigation)
Edited on Tue Jan-12-10 12:36 AM by Land Shark
check out this TV story featuring Amegy Bank (not on the 215 above, so it's 216) embedded as video in this blog post: http://poolagirl.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/dead-peasants /

Perhaps there are a few that come off the list above but no one's proven one yet. That being said, I'm sure there's more than just Amegy Bank to add on to the list above. THe Wall STreet Journal's Law Blog has info about Amegy and litigation over DPI http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/24/dead-peasant-polici...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. And here's a video focusing on Wal-Mart DPI - but expanding on the context
College kid does a good job here, surprise ending... If you're inclined to agree with him, you'll love it, if you're inclined to think there must be a silver lining in Dead Peasants, you might find him overbearing. But he's funny! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ik30ijaBgUA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Do the peasants actually have to die, or merely quit and leave the companies in the lurch?
It's taken a while, but people have finally realized that the old employer-employee responsibilities to each other are long gone. If the company can show you to the door with no warning, why give the company warning that you're leaving?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. They have to die
Better: once the company takes out a policy on you, it can maintain it whether you're employed there or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
108. Employed or not, they can keep Peasant Life (but note: they don't keep Health on ex-employees)
If you look at scentopine's link to NYT, around reply 100 or so, it shows how they are packaging life insurance cashed out early as securities so traders can gamble on packs of lives all at the same time. (In this case, living long could hurt the owner, in theory anyway). If the owner of such a package on, say, 100 lives, is getting really angry that people are living too long, one has to be a little more careful when the super=rich start getting angry about people living too long. Let's just say...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. Because you may need to come back.
For routine workers, it isn't uncommon to re-apply to the same company that you previously quit. There can be many reasons for that. So you want to leave on good terms so that you can be re-hired if need be. That means giving due notice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #11
31. Life insurance on ex-spouses??? Because, indeed, they "may come back" and remarry?
Sounds like a prescription for too much murder of ex-spouses to me, even though it's true they can and do come back and even re-marry, just like re-employment.

Surely, the better policy is to get a new policy on each hire, whether new or rehire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #31
69. Reading is fundamental.
I replied to this question: ]b]why give the company warning that you're leaving?

My response was independent of the question of life insurance, as was his question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #69
89. oh, you were off-topic and everyone should have known you were off topic
that being said a better answer to your off topic question and answer exchange would have been "future references" and future applications if they ask about notice or circumstances of departure from employment
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #89
121. By looking at the post I responded to, yes, it was obvious.
Many companies don't give references anymore. Too much legal liability. They just confirm employment dates and job title.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #69
105. SOrry, my bad, I'm focusing on some 18.3 billion BofA has in DPI and uses it for Exec Bonuses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #105
120. I replied to post #4,
The idea of a company having a financial interest in an employees death is repulsive and should be illegal. Keyman insurance would be allowed as the company would need the keyman alive more than the dead money - usually. If you want my thoughts on that subject.

I figured that we were all pretty much in agreement on how repulsive it is for a company to hope that employees die, so I address a different part of #4. Echo chamber posts, where we all say the same thing bore me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #120
127. OK, we agree: "a financial interest in an employees death is repulsive and should be illegal"
Although, "echo chamber" posts, when they reinforce a very important point, are not redundant, purely. repetition sends not only agreement but solidity and solidarity of values and feeling which provides a foundation for shared belief and action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onlyadream Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
139. From my experience you don't have to
I gave a one week notice and the company held my last pay check (their policy was a 2 week notice - but I couldn't do that b/c I decided to go back to school and it was starting). I took them to court and won. The judge pointed out that they can let an employee go at any moment, and so the employee could leave at any moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. The weasel word in the statement makes me nervous.
"The Dishonor Roll of 215 Corporations Believed by Law Firm to Have Purchased Dead Peasant Insurance on Regular Workers"

"believed"

Does this law firm know for sure, or does it just think its happened?


When you see weasel words like "believed", its always pays to inquire a little deeper.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Check link. Public statement by lawyer of FACT that's not true= any corporation could bar-complain
A belief has to have a substantial basis in fact under professional ethics, though it need not be a guarantee. There would need to be some evidence in their files for each one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. Well thats it. I did check the link
I must have missed the evidence. I just saw the weasel word again.

I'm sure that many, if not most of the companies participate in this practice.

But its also clear from the lack of commitment in the statement, that some of them really don't.

So the question becomes, which ones REALLY do this?


Like I said. When you see weasel words. Look further.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
19. Look at the other reply to your post. No basis for doubting the existence of DPI, only extent
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 11:07 AM by Land Shark
I'm sure you will be investigating this personally and not just suggesting that everyone hold off on outrage.

THe fact that any of these corporations could file a bar complaint for a false statement of fact (or a misleading statement) is another indicator of reliability. THere's no client involved here so the latitude for lawyers to "lie" is not present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. They give no source whatsoever at the link
Only statements in the context of legal representation be subject to complaints to the bar. "Are believed" -- believed by who? They don't say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. The law firm IS THE SOURCE: they specialize in investigating Dead Peasant Claims,
What makes you think lawyers are not investigators? THere's no client involved here and there's no way for them to make a dime if employees of the companies listed are not subject to DPI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. You don't know much about law firms.
If they were the source then they wouldn't haven't used the word "believed" in the statement. They can put things on a website in the hope workers will see it and start there own inquires at the company. If something is found then the worker might contact the firm. That is how it works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Whatever, I've represented lawyres and law firms (and had my own) over a 12 year law practice.
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 12:19 PM by Land Shark
Now I write legal encyclopedia articles and other writing. With respect to several firms listed there are memos featured on the movie "Capitalism: A Love Story."

SO, given that Dead Peasant insurance is real, and affects a lot of employees at Wal-Mart alone as shown on the movie, it ill behooves anyone to throw cold water on the story

If "that is how it works" as you define it were true, then file a bar complaint because the link is misleading. "Believed" when not otherwise defined or sourced, indicates a belief on the part of the poster -- because there is no other referent reasonably available.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
72. Why would I file a bar complaint?
I don't care what they are doing. I believe in the first amendment when it comes to lawyers and their advertising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
druidity33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #72
115. so you "believe" in the 1st amendment, huh?
Them's weasel words!

:eyes:


:)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #115
124. I do believe there's no First Amednment righto to lie or deceive in Advertising
Edited on Tue Jan-12-10 09:39 AM by Land Shark
The original reply suggested the lawyer posting the list on the law firm's website (to which we've added another company, Amegy Bank, to make 216) was deceptively listing too many companies by saying they "believe" the companies to hold Dead Peasant policies. When I disagreed and suggested lawyers would be held to higher standards in this particular area and might be concerned enough to contact this poster to correct them, the reply was that the law firm probably wouldn't want the "publicity." A deceptive or false statement in advertising would be actionable, such as via a bar complaint, was one thing I wrote.

The First Amendment does NOT protect deceptive advertising (which is the original claim about what the source link here was) nor does the First Amendment protect lying. I believe in the First Amendment too, but not in false or deceptive advertising for commercial/legal services. If this weren't the case all or most of consumer protection and fraud laws (which apply to the business end of lawyering - advertising) would be unconstitutional. (There is broader protection, for better or worse, for lying in political speech).

But, as druidity points out, the poster has now used the term "believe" themselves in asserting the First Amendment latitude in advertising. I'm not sure why the poster would suggest bad "publicity" would befall someone if they contacted him in regards to their exercise of First Amendment rights the poster now says he or she believes in. (?) First Amendment cases in lawyers' advertising have concerned the authority of bar associations to largely or totally BAN legal advertising, and that authority is prohibited by the First Amendment, but there's no case I know of in legal advertising or any other kind of advertising (except possibly core political speech of campaign ads, a different line of cases and context) that holds there's a 1st Am. right to lie or deceive.

So, we've added number 216 to the list, and perhaps there are some mistakes or companies that have totally dropped all DPI in the list. Regardless, the problem is systemic and widespread in corporate America, I stand by my OP in that sense, leaving room for minor errors and additions that probably cancel each other out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #115
126. Of course
As anyone who has taken a constitutional law knows the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the First amendment. It is not absolute. If you want to call that weasel words so be it. I think there are too many restrictions on attorney advertising but as each year goes by attorneys are getting more rights in that area so they eventually will be on the same level as other businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #126
131. States can not "restrict" the first amendment (if that's their intent)
TIme place and manner "restrictions" are all to the purpose of allowing the first amendment right FULL application -- the demonstration goes on... The couterexamples to this, where they occur, are violations of 1st Amendment or wrongly decided cases (and I stipulate there are some of those). But absent a constitutional right of equal magnitude in direct conflict, the first amendment can't be "restricted."

That being said, I'm not saying that time place and manner regulations can't reasonably be seen as "restrictions" - they can - but such regs must always uphold the image (at least) of allowing the expression of the right in full. If we say it's ok for states to "restrict" then the barn door has been flung really wide open.

Commercial speech in advertising is a whole separate class by itself in First Amendment cases.

Usually things that get restricted under the first amendment suffer that fate because they are "not speech." Examples: Obscenity, defamation, etc. are not "speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment, therefore not protected by the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Are you saying that's the case with this law firm? If so, maybe they'll contact you re defamation
Or, are you saying this is just the way YOU operate or the way a couple law firms you worked at operated? Or worse yet, is this just your impression based on what you read somewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #40
70. I would be happy if they contact me.
They may not want the publicity however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #70
83. You're not worth bothering with: you haven't made a specific fact based claim
The inferences you argue are far weaker than than the allegations some others try to read into the word "believed". But, if you're holding back and think you've got some facts, file a bar complaint against the lawyer who posted the list on their law firm's website. Until those facts are disclosed and you've gone public via a bar complaint, it's easy to make idle claims that everyone is just out there trolling for clients with made up information, or whatever it is that you're saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #83
111. You made the statement about contacting me, I didn't
But nevertheless as I have said I don't care what they do. Lawyers should be able to advertise as they wish and buyer beware.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #111
113. "BUyer beware" ceased to be the law of the USA a century ago.
Note that we can add Amegy Bank to the list for 216 total, (links on thread) so if you want to take off a few from the list (and think you can justify/prove that via research) it also looks like we'll be able to add a few more and it will all be a wash (my guess)

I've no connection nor any contact with this lawyer or law firm. I was just speculating that he could take offense, especially when you suggest he'd get "bad publicity" if he contacted you re defamation and explained the facts behind the list. Made it sound like you got the goods on him. Were you illustrating the very process you were suggesting this Houston lawyer doing the Dead Peasant cases used, -- i.e., of faking like you got some evidence or knowledge of some kind as a way to dredge up interest of some sort. (?)

Anyway, I don't want to pursue anything except the substance of the thread, and it now appears from review of legal case law that companies are taking the position that the states that have disclosure laws, like Florida, may not apply those laws retroactively, so obviously companies, at least a bunch of them, aren't doing so. So even in those areas of reform, there are "sleeper" DPI policies out there, AND DPI policies are sometimes used, as with Bank of America, to fund executive bonuses. (see links on thread)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
harkadog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #113
128. I don't have the "goods" on anybody
but if there is one thing in life I am not afraid of it is law firms. They are -- to abuse a quote from Mao -- paper tigers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #128
132. OK, I could have sworn you were suggesting information on the law firm's list was made up
or somehow "trolling" for clients. If you weren't saying that, end of discussion. If you are, then if you have facts to back it up, you may have "the goods". In the latter case, let's hear the facts so if there are inaccuracies I can correct them. SO far, I know of none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. Dead Peasant Insurance only needs to be in ONE COMPANY to be an outrage.
If one's personal employer were listed, then one can check into it as much as they please. But the alleged "weasel word" is no cause at all for holding off on judgment, since we know for sure, based on memos in M. Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" of several such employers already, specifically including Wal-Mart.

No need to hold back on outrage about Dead Peasant - only (and just MAYBE) as to the lesser known names on the list in terms of DPI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #17
47. "alleged"
come on, if you are really a lawyer you know exactly why the weasel word "believed" was inserted into the statement and you know exactly what is meant by weasel word.


I'm not asserting the this type of insurance doesn't happen. I know that it does.

I'm just pointing out the the lawyer on the webpage has carefully crafted the statement because he doesn't have proof. he just believes it to be true. - Big difference.

Being angry about dead peasant insurance is fine. But I need more than a half baked belief before getting angry at any particular company listed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. Not alleged, proven with memos and admissions. Did you see Capitalism: A Love Story? Apparently not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. I'm not talking about the movie.
But you already knew that.

If it was proven against each and every single company listed, then the lawyer in question would not have used the word "believed" and state "it is virtually impossible to know".

Look. I KNOW that some of those companies are guilty of this. And its shameful.

But there is a reason he never used the word proof, nor listed any evidence against any of those companies. Because "believe" gives him room to be wrong and "proof" does not. But you know that too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. But the movie proves it as to some of the companies, by any standard of proof.
As explained in some of the other replies I've made in this thread, well over a month has gone by and there's good reason to believe that any company on the list that wanted to deny this could do so and demand that their name be taken off the list (they are obliged by law to police their names/trademarks so they usually find out about this stuff very soon from search bots and google searches). Now that a bunch of time has gone by, and no one has apparently responded, the list becomes more certain by that fact alone, in addition to the facts the firm would have to have on file to justify any "belief" they put out there.

One can't, for example, say that corporation X is believed guilty of genocide without some facts to back that up. Those facts wouldn't absolutely have to be sufficient to prove it in a court of law, but they would have to be sufficient to form a REASONABLE belief, like a post on a blog by an employee referring to their own company having it. Theoretically, such a post could be faked or otherwise false but it would more likely than not be true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #62
86. Would you please cite the law you claim?
"...any company on the list that wanted to deny this could do so and demand that their name be taken off the list (they are obliged by law to police their names/trademarks so they usually find out about this stuff very soon from search bots and google searches)."

Would you please cite the law you claim? I am unaware of any law that obliges a company to "police their name".

Thank you in advance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. Here's a reference to the law from the Lanham Act (trademark - federal law)
"trademark law in the United States is almost entirely enforced through private lawsuits. {...} Otherwise, the responsibility is entirely on the mark owner to file suit in either state or federal civil court in order to restrict an infringing use. Failure to "police" a mark by stopping infringing uses can result in the loss of protection." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trademark_la... The reference to how they police is based on personal experience, but is not limited to, but includes, internet searches or bots. For example, if one uses Hard as Rock Cafe they might or might not find it but this outfit is well known to be especially aggressive about their name since so many want to do takeoffs on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubleinwinter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #90
114. This refers to trademark infringement, and has nothing whatever to do with the subject at hand.
Referring to a company by name is not trademark infringement.

Why do you even bring up trademark infringement??? If I write the words: Lipton Tea, they should find this post and sue me for trademark infringement? Of course not. But if I steal their logo or trademark and put it on my new line of jellies and jams and market them under the name, it is on them to find it and sue me for infringement, but what in the world does this have to do with your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #114
130. Baloney. Coca-cola is a trademark and a company name. Trademark policing is HOW they find out about
things such as this. Repeat: it's how they find out, (or rather ONE of the ways they find out) and that's the relevance to my original point above that the passage of time is increasingly suggestive that companies have had ample time to discover the list and complain about it if it were inaccurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #47
98. I'm not concerned about the word "believed" because I see cases BEYOND the 215 above (WSJ liink)
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 11:55 PM by Land Shark
The bank called Amegy should be added to the list in the OP. The WSJ law blog calls DPI "the next big thing in insurance litigation" and describes a lawsuit regarding Amegy, some facts of which are:

Amegy fired a man with brain cancer shortly after offering him "supplemental insurance" (canceling his $150K in supplemental via the firing, by the way) and the surviving spouse found out about the $1.5 million policy AMEGY DID NOT CANCEL when she received the check by mistake made out to "Amegy" (see link above) http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/24/dead-peasant-polici... /

(In another video link, it explains that Amegy CLAIMS they gave notice but this is denied by family survivors & that only banks have any general disclosure requirements. Though some new regs are in place, courts have ruled so far they are not retroactive so there are time-bomb nondisclosure issues out there from several years ago, plus newer ones with noncompliant nondisclosure.)


Another link at crooksandliars has a music store clerk with over 300K in policies on his head when he died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
8. This should be illegal
No employer should be able to make itself the beneficiary of an employee's death. All insurance proceeds should go to the person's heirs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. Well, IT IS ILLEGAL for someone to take FIRE insurance on a stranger's house. Know why??
WIthout an "insurable interest" (a real loss if the fire happens) then a perverse incentive is created to hope for the fire to happen - perhaps even to carelessly or intentionally cause it, in order to collect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TransitJohn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #12
28. And that, in a nutshell is what the collateralized debt obligations
and other financial derivatives which brought down the world's economy were.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. BINGO: credit default swaps and Dead Peasant incentivize destruction & death, respectively. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #28
95. You got it!!! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
91. I see one company on the list which would, in some ways, be in that situation
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 11:18 PM by laughingliberal
Tenet Healthcare Corporation has routinely required massive amount of overtime from their nurses. One group of nurses in MA went out on strike against them and stayed out 157 days back around '99 over the mandatory overtime. Nurses routinely showed up for an 8 hour shift and were forced to stay for a 2nd shift meaning they were usually working 80 hours/week. Having life insurance on an employee you are working 80 hours a week in a high stress profession would seem a little sinister and a safe bet.

edited grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Geoff R. Casavant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #8
21. Sometimes that is the employer's purpose.
Some companies take out the insurance to enable the company to pay lump-sum death benefits to the deceased employee's family. The name is distasteful, but I see no problem with it if the company's purpose isn't simply to make a profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #21
44. But of course it is. It always is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #21
46. Guess you didn't see the movie Capitalism: A Love Story (NO PAYOUTS to families) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
13. If legislators don't protect us from Dead Peasant Ins, WHY think legislated "health" Ins is good?
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 11:00 AM by Land Shark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
30. Response no. 8 is so troubling. This mind frame that money trumps all is so
george bush. Either way our legislators do not seem to have consumer safety in their legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
14. and so the people who have died under the stress of working for these companies
have arguably been murdered so the insurance could be collected.

What does a corporation care if it works someone to death if it profits on that death?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. Stephanie Miller often jokes about her boss
having taken out an insurance policy on her becuase he really wants to kill her.

I believe she's with Jones Radio.

It should be mandatory that dead peasant insurance policies be split 50/50 with the peasant's estate.


rocktivity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #15
32. What expenses does Wal-Mart, for example, have when they re-hire on death (no diff than QUIT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alameda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
18. It's sort of like Credit Default Swaps on employees...
Why on earth is this even legal? Particularly when you aren't even in the company any more. What possible interest in your well being does the company have that they deserve to gain on your demise? Why do not the actual interested parties have no benefit from this? Many people may want to have insurance to help protect their loved ones, but can't afford it.

I'm glad there is focus on this again....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. BINGO: Perverse interest in Credit default swaps and DPI to let the banking industry and workers die
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:07 AM
Response to Original message
22. Read the wiki before getting all excited about this
There appear to be two forms --

- key person insurance where the company takes out a policy on top executives and key technical specialists to offset the costs involved in a loss of the person and the costs of finding a replacement, and

- policies taken out on large numbers of lower level employees. This appears to be a tax dodge in that the company can deduct the cost of the policies from taxable revenue as expenses, but the proceeds from any deaths are tax free like any other life insurance proceeds.

The IRS appears to be trying to close the latter loophole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insur...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. Read the OP before posting. Says that DPI is on lower level employees.
So what if the IRS is "looking at" closing it? DOes that mean it's not an outrage or that we should go back to sleep and not take full note of what DPI has done? no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #26
34. The OP is factually wrong --
"After all, they're literally betting that they can "beat the actuaries" at the life insurance companies, and that over the long haul their workers will die faster than expected."

This is not true. It is the way the tax laws work and the way that insurance premiums and proceeds ara accounted for that makes it profitable for the employer to take out insurance on employees.

According to the wiki, employees have to be notified that the employer is doing this.

Also, quite a few of the companies on that list should have taken out "dead company" insurance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. Actuaries and Life Insurance co's are MISTAKENLY pricing their product then, if you're right
WHich is another way to beat the actuaries and insurance companies. If purchasers can get substantial tax benefits, that benefit goes into the pricing of the product, so the companies are still beating the life insurance companies (or think they will, or are) because the firms listed have NO SUBSTANTIAL INSURABLE INTEREST of any kind, thus it is all a big gamble.

Thanks for supporting Dead Peasant Insurance by attacking ancillary details of those who point to it. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #39
104. Bank of America has 18.3 BILLION in Dead Peasant & USES IT FOR EXEC BONUSES (WSJ!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #34
42. Here's how the "system" works in this specific context (showing you're incorrect)
1. Corporations with trademarks (all on the list) are required to police them by law - trademark law.

2. As a result they have bots or google searches scour the internet for their names and trademarks, then send cease and desist letters out, or other letters as those issues come up.

3. If this list is an issue for them, and it's false that they have DPI policies, they'd say so to the lawyers and demand that their names be removed.

4. I first saw this list well over a month ago and I waited for this time to go by in case some demand letters would be forthcoming. I don't believe a single name has been removed, but in any case even if names were removed, the list is current as of today.

5. This is not "the way things go" with this kind of advertising, if that's what this is. THe costs of dealing with even a single demand letter's threats of suit are significant, and there's no guarantee that mere removal of the name will prevent a lawsuit. Even one single lawsuit guarantees that the list is a money loser for that firm, except, and this is only a maybe, if the MSM gives them a lot of free publicity, and the MSM has appeared uninterested in making this a big issue, giving spotty coverage if any - depending on the source.

So, given the amount of time this list has been up, it adds to the credibility of the list. Plus all factual representations by lawyers must be founded on information and belief, and beliefs have to have a factual basis. The fact that the law firm is holding this area out as a specialty adds to their claim of expertise and thus increases the standard of accuracy to which they will be held. Lawyers accused of lying are almost invariably so accused in the context of representing a client, but those are the client's lies (technically) and are given wider sway because of the duty to put the best possible construction on the client's case. Here, there's no clients so they don't get that extra leeway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #42
48. These employers may have insurance policies on employees
I'd think almost any large corporation would have key man insurance on some employees.

Note that the lawyers web site says --

Which employers bought policies on the lives of employees?
Because a companys purchase of insurance policies is not a public record, it is virtually impossible to know every company that invested in policies on employees lives. The following companies, however, are believed to have been named as the beneficiary of life insurance policies on employees:


I carefully does not say that they have insurance on regular, low level employees.

Some may, for the financial reasons that I outlined above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. This is not "key man" insurance, for the reasons stated in the OP, plus the fact that
dead peasant insurance is distinguishable because of the profit motive for the corporation which is the named beneficiary - even if they split proceeds which they don't have to they have a profit motive.

In the examples in Moore's movie, they didn't split proceeds even when they were asked if they would (presumably by Moore's people)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #34
51. Yea, the positive revenue doesn't come from the insurance company
This isn't gambling at all. This is a sure thing.

The insurance companies are certainly making money and paying out less than than the premiums. If not they won't be around for very long.


The positive revenue actually comes from tax payers as both the premium and expense are excluded from taxation.


Gambling is certainly an emotional term, but the actual mechanism is even more disgusting I think.

Its an arbitrage between two corporate actuarials fueled by human lives and paid off by tax payers.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
71. "employees have to be notified that the employer is doing this"
But is it buried in all of the bullshit that you sign during the first week or so of employment, with dodgy wording and all?

The reason I ask: my employer is on the OP's list. I have no idea if I fall under any DPI provision, but I would like to know. I do some pretty dangerous stuff sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
41. It is an outrage to gamble on the deaths of American citizens
In some cases, people were not even aware of these policies. And then there's the fact that Wall St. has been viewing buying up Life Insurance policies, bundling them and repeating the corrupt practice of bundling them as they did with mortgages and selling them to investors.

The fact that in this country ANYONE would even think of betting on the deaths of citizens ought to be abhorrent enough in itself that it would slapped down, with NO more discussion because when give these ghouls an inch who knows what they are capable of? Crashing the economy didn't bother them, so long as they got theirs. But I guess we have sunk so low as a nation, it's no surprise to see people actually try to defend it.

http://www.vosizneias.com/37901/2009/09/06/new-york-wal... /

New York - Wall Street Pins Hopes on Life Insurance Bundles

Goldman Sachs has developed a tradable index of life settlements, enabling investors to bet on whether people will live longer than expected or die sooner than planned. The index is similar to tradable stock market indices that allow investors to bet on the overall direction of the market without buying stocks.

Spokesmen for Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs declined to comment.

If Wall Street succeeds in securitizing life insurance policies, it would take a controversial business the buying and selling of policies that has been around on a smaller scale for a couple of decades and potentially increase it drastically.


And the younger you die, the more they make. As the article demonstrates, there are plenty of defenders of betting on the lives and deaths of Americans. The country appears to be just one big casino where there is no limit to what can be gambled on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
49. So its really a sort of tax/actuarian arbitrage

They buy 50,000 policies. Since we are talking about a large population, its a virtual certainty that some of those policies payout.

Now if the life insurance actuarians did their job right (and they probably did), the policy premiums total more than the payouts. So at this point its still a net loss for the purchaser.

However, all the premiums are tax deductions, and all the payouts are tax free. So the tax savings outweighs the loss.

So the formula is essentially: tax.savings = (premiums-payouts)+premium.tax.deduction

Heck. thats not even gambling. That's a guaranteed revenue stream on the backs of employee lives AND taxpayers.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #49
59. "guaranteed revenue stream on backs of employees AND taxpayers" - that's a fair alternative take
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. All because they have lobbyists able to get tax code for corp deductions on life insurance n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #49
76. I think that's right -- it is good business for the employer and for the insurance company
The government loses out on tax revenue, but that is the case for lots of insurance products. The insurance companies are politically powerful and can get the tax code arranged so that their products are attractive as tax dodges, e.g. in extate tax avoidance.

Sharp lawyers and accountants stay up late thinking these things up, but they are allowed by the laws and there is nothing unusually nefarious about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #76
84. WHAT? "there is nothing unusually nefarious" about lawyers "stay up late" & changing laws???
You admit insurance companies are pretty powerful politically and lawyers "stay up late thinking these things up" and there's nothing "unusually nefarious" when they are able to define their conduct as "legal" just by changing the law when you and I can't get away (typically) with the same thing because the changed tax code or what have you only applies to corporations? Is that because this is "normally nefarious" or because wrongs become rights simply because of a corrupt change in the law, or because you think nothing insurance companies do through the legal system or legislative system is nefarious?

Everything in terms of ignoring the Geneva conventions is domestically "legal" per the miliary commissions act, and lawyers stayed up late figuring out how to deprive human rights and create as powerful an executive branch as possible. Nothing nefarious about this because it is "legal" domestically even though an outside moral or international law perspective totally says otherwise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
safeinOhio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
23. Can they get a death cert.?
Wouldn't they have to have a physical for risk/rates? If they don't need either can't one get the same deal from the insurance company for their family?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Death certificate: yes. Physical not always req, Same deal for us? I dunno, doubt it tho. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
33. PLEASE READ at least the titles of my thread replies/additions if you have questions. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
36. I see that the Banksters are well-represented on this list.....
..... maybe they can use some of the bailout money to purchase some more policies !!!!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Yeah, recycling the proceeds to puchase more policies would help them hire more employee-victims
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tailormyst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
43. I am not sure exactly how this would work
The person being insured needs to sign the Life insurance policy and the beneficiaries need to have insurable interest in regards to the insured. Key man insurance is to help in replacement costs for locating a replacement worker of a highly needed position within a company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #43
45. OP is NOT key man insurance, the workers are NOT key. And the fact is workers were NOT informed..
until after death in the cases highlighted in Capitalism: A Love Story. Maybe there are in some cases but I personally haven't heard of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
havocmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
50. Send list to yer congress critters and editors of every paper you can write
One more reason Single Payer is only way to really reform health care. Insurance companies take too much off the top and employers who MIGHT offer health care options might also stand to gain money if their employees just die. What's the incentive for helping your employees stay healthy when there is a payday for the boss when a worker dies?

Capitalism is killing Americans at a much faster rate than any other terrorist organization in the world
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. The profit incentive for corporations remains even if they'd split payout w/ employee's survivors
But dead peasant insurance is basically defined by the fact that the beneficiary is NOT the estate of the deceased or their next of kin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ioo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
52. Yah I work for one of those companies.
Nice to know that the stockholders may make cash if I drop dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Well, a couple folks here think these for profit companies are doing this for CHARITY. Yeah, right!
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 01:58 PM by Land Shark
Or, to "help" their employees, if that isn't charity, splitting the proceeds with next of kin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
56. Thank you for the link and list!
Thank God we live in an age where these sleazy practices can be dragged into the light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. If it were up to a few of the replies on this list, none of this would come to light much at all
In fact, so long as it's logically POSSIBLE - in their under-informed estimation - that there's any possible explanation that would even mitigate the crime, then they want to pour cold water on the entire thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
97. I noticed that. Apologists for Dead Peasant Insurance
Disgusting :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. Apologists should START with some homework, but here's some video help on Peasant INsurance
It's embedded in this blog post here:
http://poolagirl.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/dead-peasants /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
63. This topic is so disgusting and reprehensible.
I had almost forgotten about it.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nostalgicaboutmyfutr Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
64. Quick Fix: Tax the Payout and send proceeds to surviving family....EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Good idea: What BASIS is there for a corporation to get non-taxable windfall on replaceable worker?
It's not "key man" insurance as a couple people have misperceieved upthread. Any basis for nontaxability would be the idea of grieving for the dead, which isn't present in corporations - as a matter of both law and common sense they don't have emotions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
65. I thought that when a person
had a life insurance policy taken out on her/him, she/he had to be notified.

Is that no longer the case? I mean if the business starts to go downhill, wouldn't the workers be worth more dead than alive?

Just doesn't seem legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. That would vary by state law, but not in numerous states (perhaps all?) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femrap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. I'm sure the Corporations
have been able to turn the laws to their favor. They may have convoluted a type of insurance that was known as 'Key Man' insurance. It was used in small businesses when there were a few 'key' leaders. But still the person whose life was insured had to be informed and had to sign something.

Hell...with the way things are going, they'll figure out a way to kill off everyone before they can collect SS or Medicare. Ever see the movie 'Soylent Green?'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
68. This was one of the most illuminating segments in "Capitialism A Love Story"
I wish there were clips on youtube. More people from here need to see it evidently.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
73. Do professional sport teams have insurance (either life or injury) on
the players on those teams, and if so, are we to be upset with them too?

Maybe it's a business thing, sort of a hedge against losing the services of those workers, er, players.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #73
93. WIth a big dollar "player" either sports or prof office worker, OK, but not MIN WAGE or close to it
That's the issue here is the utterly replaceable (for the most part) regular workers who have policies on them, not something that is true "key person" insurance or where an employer such as a team will probably suffer a significant or great financial loss upon death of a star player, for example.

I'm just curious: I wonder why some people attack posts on a basis that is inapt. Does one not want to care or get concerned if there's any possible way out of the box? Sure, there's such a thing as Knee-Jerk support too, but since presumably we're on the same side, I wonder about knee jerk opposition. If there's something UNSTATED in the OP that is disagreed with, why not address that directly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #73
99. I believe what you are describing is more on the lines of Key Man insurance
The cashier at Walmart really doesn't rise to that level.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snake in the grass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
75. A 'must be aware of' if not a...
...'must know' list.

k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
78. Just more corrupt capitalism at work ..... deadly and suicidal ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuart68 Donating Member (556 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
79. Sallie Mae ?!?!
so, since we have pledged unlimitd funds to keep this gov't controlled entity open, how 'bout we make a phone call and clear one off the list (sure there are others).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #79
85. sounds good. A few replies suggest that if the number is substantially less than 215 all's cool.???
But if we can whittle down the list via pressure or confirming that the practice has been stopped or perhaps never stopped, all the better. That being said we know DPI policies are real and that in many cases they don't share with relatives, and in ALL cases they don't HAVE TO because by definition under DPI the beneficiary is not the deceased's estate or the survivors, otherwise they wouldn't call it "dead peasant" for goodness' sake!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
80. I have worked for one of those companies on the list. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:08 PM
Response to Original message
81. "Corporate health insurance" is not MEANT to keep people alive....
just to keep them around & paying in...if that fails, well there are those life insurance policies doncha know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
82. Bookmarked for future reference. Thank you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
87. My wifes company is on that list
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 10:50 PM by liberal N proud
Would explain why it doesn't bother them to work her to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
88. A lot of these corporations no longer exist due to mergers, etc.
* Ameritech Corp.
* Atlantic Richfield Co.
* B. F. Goodrich Company
* Bank Boston
* Bank One Corp.
* Barnett Banks Inc.
* Bear Stearns Companies
* Bellsouth Corporation
* Checkfree Corp.
* Chemical Banking Corporation
* Citizens Bank
* Dime Bancorp Inc.
* Fleet Bank
* FleetBoston Financial Corp.
* GTE Corporation
* Houghton Mifflin
* Household Finance
* Linens N Things Inc.
* McDonnell Douglas Corp.
* National City Corporation

And do forth. This is just from memory, there are probably a lot more that are defunct.
* NationsBank
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. We've got "Citizens Bank" right near our house, so the name lives on
and probably the people who work there think they work for "Citizens Bank" so even if it was bought out, it also still lives on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
94. Glad to see my company isn't on there! Thanks for this list. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
96. Here's the Wall St Journal: "DPI next big thing in insurance litigation"
From February 24, 2009: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/02/24/dead-peasant-polici... /

Check out the really disgusting story of Amegy (who needs to be added to the OP list, and is a bank) who fired a man with brain cancer shortly after offering him "supplemental insurance" (canceling his $150K by the way) but the surviving spouse found out about the $1.5 million policy when she received the check by mistake made out to "Amegy" (see link above)

Another link at crooksandliars has a music store clerk with over 300K in policies on his head when he died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scentopine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-11-10 11:50 PM
Response to Original message
100. Thank you Land Shark - don't let the fuckers set you back...
I really enjoy reading your posts.

Centrist
noun
1. (esp. in Obama Admin) a member of a political party who empathizes with the need for corporations to make profits without the encumbrance of principals, morals, ethics, civil law or criminal law;

2. a politician who holds a smug composition of academic purity; takes path of least political resistance; deferential to wealth and power; conservative; moderate; realist.

Guess what?

The insurance companies are demanding Congress relax securities regulations to let them to trade life policies (including DPI) on new type of derivatives exchange. Health insurance is also being worked on as part of this new offering of investment instruments (sound familiar?).

----- snips
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/business/06insurance....

"The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.

Either way, Wall Street would profit by pocketing sizable fees for creating the bonds, reselling them and subsequently trading them. But some who have studied life settlements warn that insurers might have to raise premiums in the short term if they end up having to pay out more death claims than they had anticipated."

"Goldman Sachs has developed a tradable index of life settlements, enabling investors to bet on whether people will live longer than expected or die sooner than planned. The index is similar to tradable stock market indices that allow investors to bet on the overall direction of the market without buying stocks.

Spokesmen for Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs declined to comment."

"The solution? A bond made up of life settlements would ideally have policies from people with a range of diseases leukemia, lung cancer, heart disease, breast cancer, diabetes, Alzheimers. That is because if too many people with leukemia are in the securitization portfolio, and a cure is developed, the value of the bond would plummet."
--------

They are getting a warm reception from the "centrists".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #100
102. This slightly different, but SAME; "We suck you dry, then you must die."
Edited on Tue Jan-12-10 12:11 AM by Land Shark
Securitizing life insurance sold early by elderly folks has the added "feature" that, potentially, investors purchasing these securitized bundles of policies could LOSE money if folks LIVE TOO LONG.

The reason elderly folks sell these, along with terminally ill, in "viatical" settlements and the like, is to aid with expenses prior to death. This is why I put the title of this thread what I think is the medical-industrial complexes motto, especially when this kind of insurance arbitrage hits: "We suck you dry, then you must die."

It's bad enough that corporate america has a party when an ex-employee dies, or a current one, whoever they have insurance on. (Note the corporate health coverage doesn't last long past end of employment but the life insurance can last decades. Hmmmm..... ) But when corporate America starts affirmatively taking it in the shorts on a leveraged security package because folks are not dying fast enough, um, it may well pay to be paranoid.

Just think, how many super-rich folks do YOU want thinking "It sucks that you are still alive. It's hurting my bottom line...."?



And thanks for your readership and support, scentopine!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeff47 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
103. One semi-legit posible use
Just a possibility: One of the companies on the list is Carolina Power & Light Co. They're the electrical utility in much of the Carolinas. Now, a certain number of their linemen are going to die on the job - it's not exactly a safe profession. And it might be cheaper to buy life insurance on the linemen than buy liability insurance to cover the ensuing wrongful death lawsuits.

Still, a rather evil practice in most cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #103
106. Yeah, like the $18.3 billion Bank of Am. has in Dead Peasant, used for Executive Bonuses???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #103
107. C'mon Jeff47, even in that narrow case, the utility is going to fight survivors in court
That's yet another kind of evil to drag the survivors through, so "semi-legitimate" might be a stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jotsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
112. My own town's public utility is on this list!
I know it's a crazy dream, but if these corporations could get cornered, like in a public light, into signing proceeds from collected benefits over to the...department of education from year to year? I bet we could get a system that stands a better shot when it comes to students and success in a more ethically centered society. Seriously, the corporatocracy would greatly benefit from the much need image boost and we'd get a feel for how much money we're talking about.

Is this the kind of thing a place like Propublica would assemble information on?

Thanks for a great clash of titanic threads kind of read Land Shark. Clearly not a topic some folks don't want seeing play time, I hope to find it at the top of the board for days!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
116. Reads like a novel by Gogol.
Edited on Tue Jan-12-10 08:24 AM by lonestarnot
wiki from Dead Souls

"Chichikov's macabre mission to acquire "dead souls" is actually just another complicated scheme to inflate his social standing (essentially a 19th century Russian version of the ever popular "get rich quick" scheme). He hopes to collect the legal ownership rights to dead serfs as a way of inflating his apparent wealth and power. Once he acquires enough dead souls, he will retire to a large farm and take out an enormous loan against them, finally acquiring the great wealth he desires."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
117. What's the big deal?
I fail to see what the problem here is.

If a company looses an employee, there is a cost associated with that loss. What is wrong with buying insurance to guard against this loss, just like insuring against any other kind of loss?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #117
135. What's the cost of replacing music store clerk? (typical) $350,000 ? You fail to see problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #135
136. THe policy amounts are astronomically more than hiring a new clerk.
The music store clerk example, shown in various links on the web, had $350K on his head - basically just a cashier. Does it cost 350K to replace a cashier?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #136
138. They are paying for $350K worth of coverage.
They are paying for the coverage, so what is the problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #138
142. Read the thread. Without an "insurable interest" in the form of real loss on death, moral hazard
exists, which is a term in economics for perverse incentives the law usually prohibits. E.g. if someone takes out fire insurance on a neighbor's house they don't have any significant interest in, their incentive is to hope it burns so they can collect so they won't use due care, or perhaps will even set it on fire even though that's a crime.

If you don't see the problem with an employer having several hundred thousand dollar incentive not to use due care, and to continue the dead peasant policy for years after employment when they have no conceivable cost upon death in nearly all instances, I'm afraid I don't know how to fix a broken moral compass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #142
144. OK, I can see that.
If you don't see the problem with an employer having several hundred thousand dollar incentive not to use due care

Yes, I can see the problem now, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #135
137. Who cares?
They pay for the level of coverage they want, just as I do for my own personal life insurance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #137
143. Read the thread, including my reply to your other message just like this. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
2 Much Tribulation Donating Member (522 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #137
145. Thanks for your response #144 saying you understand. Takes character to change mind.
Edited on Tue Jan-12-10 07:06 PM by 2 Much Tribulation
or, if you didn't change your mind, at least acknowledging the position of the other side was understandable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Harry Monroe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
118. And just think. They can also game the system by lowering safety standards and regulations
through legislation, as was happening during the Bush years. And they're wagering that we'll have a more "corporate" friendly Congress after the '10 elections and a Republican president in '12. More employees dying on the job means more insurance premiums they can cash in!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whyverne Donating Member (734 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
119. Actually it's just a tax dodge.
As explained here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Think about it now, the insurance companies would not pay out more than they were collecting in premiums. So how could the company who bought the insurance make money?

Maybe this is a tax loophole that should be closed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #119
133. It is not "just" a tax dodge to secretly take out insurance on someone.
The very fact they keep it a secret in many cases, and the fact that they WANT to, even where they cannot keep it a secret, is the start of a whole bunch of aspects of this that go way beyond being just a tax dodge.

By the way, whyverne, I have a life insurance policy on your head. You've been kind of insubordinate here, much like a corporate employee might be. The face amount is six figures plus. No problem, right, because this is "just a tax dodge" for me? There's nothing else going on here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
122. interesting how many are financial firms, utility companies & Big Chem. Hmmm. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
123. Bear Stearns died before the Peasants
:nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
125. Time for a MASSIVE Class Action Suit on this shit.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
129. If they die on the job there's a big worker's comp claim
And how much could it cost to replace them if they die elsewhere? Doesn't sound like a big expense, and that's the only legitimate business reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Piewhacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
134. Shame!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onlyadream Donating Member (821 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
140. I don't get it
when I took out a life insurance policy, I had to be weighed and have a blood test. How could these companies do this without you knowing?
Also, can a person take life insurance on anyone - like a neighbor, or celebrity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #140
141. Some life insurance policies don't require physicals. DPI is an abusive expansion
of "key person" insurance (where there's a real subsantial loss to company on death and often a need to buy out a stock interest) to extend to where there's not a real loss to the company on losing an employee due to death (clerks, cashiers, others similar...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
146. Tax free = Slush fund? Embezzlement opportunities?
It starts life as non-reportable income. It could pay for all kinds of unsavory activities

Who knows where this money really goes? Exactly how is the income booked on the corporate accounts?
Who tracks and follows it? I could imagine big embezzlment/fraud opportunities by buying it for fake employees and providing fake death certificates to the insurance companies. If I can think of that in about 30 seconds, I can bet that someone else has.

Imagine mining companies (or any high risk company) taking out these policies? Does it put lives at risk if they are worth more as dead peasants than live employees? Has any company had unusally large and unexpected payouts? ( An odd number of employees as victims of hit-and-run, malfunctioning furnances, small plane crashes, late night single car automobile accidents, etc. etc?)

This is the exact equivalent of credit default swaps only on people instead of bad bonds.

Really, really bad juju written all over this.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:32 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. Why would these be non taxable as "employee benefits" if they clearly do not benefit the employee?
I think there is some very grave shit going on here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-13-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #148
149. Bank of America uses these to fund executive bonuses (links in thread) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-12-10 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
147. kick to keep in front of consciousness - you can't get lower than this.
Think about this whole concept for awhile. Let the full frothy moral repugnance infuse you.

There are companies that:

Reap a NON-TAXABLE- PROFIT from lower level employees DEATH, even when it it clear that the employee's life and expertise has NOTHING to do with the survival or continuance of the blood-sucking, profiting by death company.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-13-10 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #147
150. It seems that you GET IT, plus the huge incentive NOT to use due care as to current employees. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 23rd 2017, 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC