The Lame Stream Media prides itself on its unerring accuracy and commitment to getting the facts straight. As it turns out, at least when it comes to life insurance, this pride is, in fact, unjustified. As we pointed out almost 4 years ago, they can't even get the relatively simple suicide exclusion correct:
"...it appears that this may well have been an elaborately staged suicide, the point of which was to leave the proceeds of a life insurance policy to the victim's son ... “There’s no such thing as suicide insurance."
Which is true, but as we pointed out, irrelevant. It would have taken the reporter five minutes to interview a life insurance agent to provide clarity and context (not to mention accuracy).
And now we see the same shoddy reporting in another tragic case:
"... for Cindy Karlsen, there was the $1.2 million policy that her husband had now taken out on her life ... She learned Karlsen had invested some of the insurance money from his son's death into a life insurance policy on her."
And how did the erstwhile Mrs Karlsen learn this? Apparently it came as a big surprise to her that she had applied for life insurance, but some simple fact-checking by the (so-called) reporter might have revealed that it's almost impossible to buy life insurance on another person without his or her consent, let alone knowledge. And a policy with over $1 million on the line is going to require not just a physical examination, but (at least according to the carriers I represent), a telephone interview with the prospective insured.
So we are left to believe one of two things is true:
1) A life insurance company issued a million dollar policy strictly off an application - no exam, no blood or urine draw, no interview - and no effort to confirm the information on the application.
or
2) She agreed to complete and sign a lengthy life insurance application, take a fairly invasive physical exam - including, depending on her age, a stress-test and the release of her medical records - and do an exhaustive telephone interview, without the slightest clue that this was for a ... wait for it .... life insurance policy.
How dumb does the LSM think we are?
[Major IB Thanks to Jeff M for helping me noodle through this post]
"...it appears that this may well have been an elaborately staged suicide, the point of which was to leave the proceeds of a life insurance policy to the victim's son ... “There’s no such thing as suicide insurance."
Which is true, but as we pointed out, irrelevant. It would have taken the reporter five minutes to interview a life insurance agent to provide clarity and context (not to mention accuracy).
And now we see the same shoddy reporting in another tragic case:
"... for Cindy Karlsen, there was the $1.2 million policy that her husband had now taken out on her life ... She learned Karlsen had invested some of the insurance money from his son's death into a life insurance policy on her."
And how did the erstwhile Mrs Karlsen learn this? Apparently it came as a big surprise to her that she had applied for life insurance, but some simple fact-checking by the (so-called) reporter might have revealed that it's almost impossible to buy life insurance on another person without his or her consent, let alone knowledge. And a policy with over $1 million on the line is going to require not just a physical examination, but (at least according to the carriers I represent), a telephone interview with the prospective insured.
So we are left to believe one of two things is true:
1) A life insurance company issued a million dollar policy strictly off an application - no exam, no blood or urine draw, no interview - and no effort to confirm the information on the application.
or
2) She agreed to complete and sign a lengthy life insurance application, take a fairly invasive physical exam - including, depending on her age, a stress-test and the release of her medical records - and do an exhaustive telephone interview, without the slightest clue that this was for a ... wait for it .... life insurance policy.
How dumb does the LSM think we are?
[Major IB Thanks to Jeff M for helping me noodle through this post]
0 nhận xét:
Post a Comment