Will There Be A Handgun And Assault Rifle Attack Coverage For Teachers in America?

With NRA president Wayne LaPierre’s proposal to have all teachers’ in America arm themselves with concealable handguns in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting last year, will insurance companies soon provide handgun and assault rifle attack coverage for teachers? 

By: Ringo Bones 

The US Republican Party and the National Rifle Association (NRA) might be now too beholden by the very profitable small-arms retail industry in America to even look into the concept of “universal background checks” in order persons with mental disorders can no longer just willy-nilly buy military style assault weapons and then commit mass shootings like what happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut back in December 14, 2012. Even though NRA president Wayne LaPierre suggested that the only viable solution is for teachers and school administrators arm themselves with concealable small-arms as a way of preventing such attacks in the future is for most of us a leap in logic that goes beyond normal logic. Even though politicians – especially those as conservative as the US Republican Party – are only concerned with rhetoric that make them look good and private small-arms sales in America that enriches their own bottom line, will actuaries tenured by major insurance providers that care only about truthful data be willing to agree with their conservative “Red State” vision of America? 

Sadly, actuaries care about truthful data – not conservative rhetoric. As more schools in America consider arming their employees, some school districts are encountering a daunting economic burden: insurance carriers / insurance providers are now threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely. Looks like handgun and assault rifle attack coverage for teachers in America or as a way to put it in another way, handgun attack insurance and assault rifle attack insurance coverage for teachers in America is now seen as “not economically viable” by most existing insurance carriers.

During legislative sessions of the first half of 2013, seven US states enacted laws permitting teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools. Three of the measures – in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee took effect back in the first week of July 2013. But already, EMC Insurance Companies – the liability insurance provider for about 90 percent of Kansas school districts – has sent a letter to its agents saying that schools permitting employees to carry concealed handguns would be declined coverage. 

The insurer’s letter explained to officials in Kansas: “We are making this underwriting decision simply to protect the financial security of our company.” The “ghost” of the Sandy Hook elementary School mass shooting may have yet to be exorcised out of the consciousness of the American psyche, but it looks like handgun attack and assault rifle attack insurance coverage for armed teachers is a loosing proposition and not economically viable. 

Should Your Important Insurance Papers Be Stored in the Cloud?

Given that the hard copy of your insurance policies can be destroyed by fire and/or flood, should we be insuring our important insurance related papers/documents in the cloud?

By: Ringo Bones 

Since the introduction of cloud computing and data storage, it seems that even ordinary nettizens can’t seem to live without it anymore.  And given that one’s important insurance related documents – i.e. the hard copy of your very important insurance policies can be damaged and or lost in a fire, flood, avalanche or other insurable disaster that can make short shrift of your important insurance policy documents in their paper / hard copy form, should we be storing – in digital form – our important insurance policies in the cloud? 

There’s an on-line provider that gives such service, it’s called Policy Buddy and you can visit them online at www.policybuddy.com. It provides a cloud service where you can digitally store your important insurance policies in case if the hard copy – or insurance policy paper documents – is destroyed in a fire, flood, avalanche or other natural or man-made disaster that can make a short shrift of your very important insurance policy papers to oblivion. Not to mention that most of us already have the trouble remembering where was the last safe place we stored our homeowners or similar insurance policy papers. 

As a cloud data storage / insurance policy management app, Policy Buddy also periodically reminds you if your existing insurance policy is up for renewal. Its cloud data storage system is compliant with existing EU data protection standards and privacy laws. As a way to protect your important insurance papers from the vagaries of an uncertain future and also to remind you if your current insurance policies are already up for renewal, It sure is a better bet to avail with the cloud services of Policy Buddy.

The Big Fat Spanish Medical Insurance Debacle

Even though Spain – like the rest of other EU member countries – is currently suffering from economic hardship, should it’s hospitals be “conning” more affluent EU citizens as a means of bailing out its own economy? 

By: Ringo Bones 

As an European Union citizen, have you ever been forced to pay for your emergency medical treatment in Spain after they refused to accept your E.H.I.C.? Well, back around May 31, 2013, the news story came out that most Spanish hospitals had been conning more affluent E.U. citizens – especially British tourists – into paying for emergency treatment or charging it on their current travel insurance even though their E.H.I.C. covers it. Even though Spain – like those other E. U. member countries – is currently suffering from economic hardship, should their hospitals be “conning” more affluent E.U. citizens as a means of an E.U. sourced economic bailout even though the said E.U. citizens’ E.H.I.C. covers it? 

The E.H.I.C. – or the European Health Insurance Card – is specifically designed to allow all European Union citizens the right to have emergency medical care under existing European Union laws. However, it has recently came out that Spanish hospitals have been refusing to accept the card therefore conning patients into paying hospital bills and insisting tourists to claim the incurred costs of their emergency medical treatments on their existing travel insurance policies. 

Under E.U. law any British citizen is entitled to free medical care within the European Union. The cost of any care is then billed to the U.K.’s N.H.S.; however Spain has taken upon itself to reject the E.H.I.C. and charge British nationals for any treatment and advice them that they should claim it on their existing travel insurance policy. Isn’t this the most thuggish way for Spain to ask for the Brussels for an economic bailout? 

The Russian Ural Region Meteorite Impact: Meteorite Strike Risk Insurance Raison D’être?

Is the rather harrowing Russian Ural Region meteorite impact the very raison d’être for availing oneself of a good meteorite strike risk insurance policy? 

By: Ringo Bones

According to astronomers, the Friday, February 15, 2013 meteor streaking across Russia’s Ural Region that generated a powerful shockwave that shattered windows that injured over 1,000 people and then sent meteorite fragments crashing as far afield as neighboring Kazakhstan have nothing to do with the 150-meter wide asteroid that came to Earth at only one-tenth the distance to the Moon. The asteroid known as Asteroid 2012 DA14that came within 28,000 kilometers of Earth and harmlessly grazing the orbits of geosynchronous satellites. Even though it’s a miracle that nobody died, the Kremlin is now sending a clean up crew to the region where the damage is now estimated to be around 30-million US dollars. Even though the odds of any person being hit by a former celestial body is around 1 in 150-trillion, should one avail himself or herself a reasonably good meteorite strike risk insurance policy?  

After seeing the news footage of the Russians lining up in the hospital to be treated by the injuries caused by the flying glass resulting from the strong shockwave of the meteorite strike which was estimated to be five times more powerful than the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and the resulting damage to buildings had me wondering if an insurance policy based compensation scheme could be helpful in once-in-a-century calamities like these. The Friday meteor streak was even caught in the region’s local traffic cameras and security cameras. The last time a similar event occurred in the region was the Tunguska, Siberia event back in 1908. 

Even though meteorite strike risk insurance issued to individuals may still be as rare as hen’s teeth, the larger 150-meter wide asteroid could have damaged those multi-million dollar global positioning satellites and internet-related telecommunications satellites beyond repair. Making one wonder if the insurance coverage of those multi-million dollar satellites includes being hit by a former celestial body? 

Adverse Possession Insurance: A Post Subprime Mortgage Crisis Necessity?

Given that a large number of banks in the US have lost their recently repossessed real properties via adverse possession, is adverse possession insurance now a post subprime mortgage crisis necessity?

By: Ringo Bones

It might only be a “luxury problem” for the upper echelons of the socio-economic ladder, but adverse possession can be a serious issue to real property owners given that belligerent homeless people have used preexisting adverse possession laws and statutes in various states in America for “legalized squatting” purposes. Could the establishment of an adverse possession insurance remedy such a predicament? But first, here’s a primer on what this adverse possession and its rather nebulous legal rigmarole is all about.

At the height of the subprime mortgage crisis in America, many “legal jurisprudence savvy” homeless people had resorted to adverse possession as a way to possess a new house without paying a single cent. After all, given that most preexisting adverse possession laws in the U.S. allows belligerent squatters to legally occupy and own foreclosed property – i.e. a hose and lot – if the bank who now owns it didn’t report a break on to the local law enforcement agencies concerned.

Like it or not (you certainly won’t if you own the “legally squatted” property), adverse possession is a process by which premises can change ownership. It is governed by statutes concerning the title to real property – i.e. land and the fixed structures built upon it. Strange as it may seem, statutes of limitation in most U.S. states allow an adverse possessor to acquire legal title if the owner does not seek timely possession.

Adverse possession consists of actual occupation of the land with the intent to keep it solely for oneself. 

Merely claiming the land or paying taxes on it, without actually possessing it, is insufficient. Entry on land – whether legal or not – is essential. A trespass may commence adverse possession, but there must be more than temporary use of the property by a trespasser for adverse possession to be established. Physical acts must show that the possessor is exercising the dominion over the land that an average owner of similar property would exercise. Ordinary use of the property – for example, planting and harvesting crops or cutting and selling timber – indicates actual possession. In some states, acts that constitute actual possession are found in statute. An adverse possessor must possess land openly for the entire world to see, as a true owner would. Secretly occupying another’s land does not give the occupant any legal rights. Given that such defines adverse possession, how can adverse possession insurance prevent one from losing his or her own real property to a “belligerent adverse possessor”?

Well, insurance companies could model their adverse possession insurance policies, or an “adverse possession risk insurance” policies after preexisting kidnap and ransom insurance policies because both are primarily designed to work in a “risky environment” given that there is very little difference between kidnappers and belligerent adverse possessors as both are utterly devoid of respect for other fellow human beings’ life and property. I mean the legal precedents for establishing one are already there, right?

Awareness and prevention clause could be added to an adverse possession insurance policy, especially to real property located in “high-risk areas” – i.e. ineffectual local law enforcement agencies and largely unenforced local real property laws and statutes. And let’s not forget a reimbursement clause where financial reimbursement of the true owner of the real property subject to a adverse possession event by a belligerent individual or individuals that may require either a regional court-sanctioned armed intervention by specialist security contractors or a lengthy legal court proceedings up to the agreed policy limit. 

Pet Medical Insurance: A Luxurious Necessity?

Given that in most affluent parts of the world veterinary medical treatment of one’s beloved pet often cost more than a typical human’s medical treatment, should one get a pet medical insurance to keep pet medical expenses a bit more bearable?

By: Ringo Bones

Unless you own a show dog whose prize money winnings is enough to pay for premiums for a self-insurance policy to keep skyrocketing medical expenses of your beloved pet a bit bearable, now is a good time as any to shop for a medical insurance for your pet with premiums you can afford and a coverage that’s right for your pet. Pet medical insurance may be a luxurious necessity in our current austere fiscal global environment where a typical human with a minimum-wage job can on the best of days just barely get by. After all, if ever you want to place a price on your pet’s love for you, a pet medical insurance is a good - and quite utilitarian – place to start.

Hong Kong residents often bemoan the price of veterinary treatment in their neck of the woods which on average tends to be 2.5 times more expensive than a typical human’s medical treatment. So owners could have their pets seen as a status symbol if they are in relatively good health – and seen frequenting a posh veterinary clinic.

In the more affluent countries of the European Union – like Germany – if your dog needs to have a hip replacement, veterinary facilities exist that could surgically replace your dog’s ailing hip joint with a brand new one made of medical grade titanium and plastic for around 3,000-euros. The price includes the X-Rays and the specialist fee. Strangely enough, during the 1960s – artificial hip joints intended for medical use were tested on dogs to look out for unforeseen medical side-effects. This is the reason why most veterinarians today can easily learn how to surgically replace artificial hip joints on ailing dogs because the procedure was routinely done with a high degree of success during the 1960s and the procedural steps have since been extensively documented.

Some veterinary practitioners routinely perform canine blood transfusions in their clinics on dogs that need them because knowledge on the different blood types of dogs and related treatments were already extensively documented by medical researchers over 50 year ago during their use of dogs as laboratory test animals. If such “advanced” veterinary procedures become the norm in the near future, will the premiums for medical insurance for one’s pets eventually come down to the level of mass affordability?

Kidnap And Ransom Insurance: Legalized Protection Racket?

Even though it is already freely advertized on-line and many insurance companies provide such policies, but is kidnap and ransom insurance nothing more than a “legalized protection racket”?

By: Ringo Bones

One of the fundamentals that had been laid out by the increasingly globalized insurance business since its establishment was that the first essential factor in insurance is that the element of gambling must not be present. But what if a certain insurance policy involves a sort of tacit contract of indemnity between the insurance company and the criminals doing the criminal act that needs to be insured? Does this make the supposedly “legitimate” insurance company now involved in the complicity of a criminal act? Have you ever checked out some of the policies defining these so-called kidnap and ransom insurance?

A lot of insurance companies plying their “kidnap and ransom insurance” wares on-line seem to have reach a salient consensus in their policies’ themes. Some extolling that kidnap, ransom and extortion insurance should form a part of contingency planning or risk management for any international company whose personnel work in emerging markets designated as “high-risk” as defined by the US State Department or other related global security watchdogs. According to insurance companies selling kidnap, ransom and extortion insurance, “Your employees may be seen as legitimate targets for kidnap and ransom demands”. But what if there’s some kind of collusion between the kidnap and ransom insurance providers and the actual criminals doing the actual kidnapping, abduction, extortion and what have you? Does this mean that we’re screwed?

If anyone out there with concerns like mine, they are totally warranted because of the very definition a typical kidnap for ransom insurance policy is often executed. Like one of the most valuable services that a kidnap and ransom policy can offer is the provision of a crisis management team to handle negotiations and assist with all activities involved in a kidnapping case. So what if the highly trained kidnap and ransom responders are just complicit with the actual criminals doing the actual abduction?

And wait till you hear the “confidentiality clause” about how kidnap, ransom and extortion insurance providers operate a strict policy of non-disclosure of client details. Does this mean there’s also a non-disclosure agreement between complicity of the kidnap and ransom insurance provider and the actual criminals doing the actual kidnapping and extortion?

Unlike insurance companies that issue fire insurance that support the Underwriters’ Laboratories or similar organizations involved in research and other activities actually doing something to reduce fire losses and spur fire prevention, insurance companies that issue kidnap, ransom and extortion insurance don’t seem to be supporting the local law enforcement agencies of the supposedly high-risk countries that their policy holders work. And there’s that moral hazard that it just seems too tempting – not to mention all to easy – for the insurance companies that issue kidnap, ransom and extortion insurance policies to just be complicit with the local criminal elements in order to stealthily fleece their clients with the law enforcement groups concerned being none the wiser.

So is the kidnap and extortion / ransom insurance nothing more than a legalize protection racket? Well, most of them probably provide an honest service but it is all too easy to turn a typical kidnap and ransom insurance clause into a fraudulent scheme, enterprise or even a criminal activity for profit. Given that if these kidnap, ransom and extortion responders employed by the insurance companies that issue kidnap and ransom insurance do the actual groundwork of actually doing old-fashioned legwork in order to identify the rigmaroles of the local kidnap for ransom enterprise of these high-risk business destinations, does this mean that abduction risk will be further minimized making such kidnap for ransom insurance policies just seem so unnecessary?