4 ms·

It’s possibly the case that had he been killed by police his insurance plan would reward his heirs differently than if he billed himself. I thought of this bec

It’s possibly the case that had he been killed by police his insurance plan would reward his heirs differently than if he billed himself. I thought of this because of a weird commercial for life insurance.

vmception 5y ago
According to this source, most plans have just an “exclusion period” like 2 years after opening the plan where suicide would not be covered but may result in a refund of premium payments, after that period seems like they pay out in full https://www.coverage.com/insurance/life/the-truth-about-suicide-life-insurance/ https://www.coverage.com/insurance/life/the-truth-about-suic...
- KMag 5y ago
  "Life insurance won't pay out if you commit suicide" sounds like a common misconception/noble lie worth perpetuating. On the one hand, I'm generally in favor of trusting people to make the right decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances if they're given enough information. On the other hand, if that one piece of information means the difference between life and death... then I feel a bit more confident in asserting that everyone is probably better off with them living.
  - vmception 5y ago
    It makes more sense to raise the premiums on people prone to it or just refund the premiums, which is also based in reality. Protects the insurance pool all the same and better. I don't think random inaccuracies about suicide repercussions are worth perpetuating, it just perpetuates the ignorance about the subject and general unwillingness to discuss the nuances of the subject
    - KMag 5y ago
      I agree with your first point, but it's orthogonal to the question if people who would commit suicide given enough money goes to their loved ones should be tricked into not committing suicide. And, as far as the utility argument is concerned, the insurance pool is best off if they're tricked into staying alive and paying into the pool. As to your second point, I agree in general with reducing ignorance about suicide, but this one misconception feels... somehow worth the lie. I agree it's not the most objectively rational position to take, but if the money is the only thing making the difference between life and death, I feel like it's better they pretend the money isn't there, and it's easier to pretend if they don't know they're pretending.
      - vmception 5y ago
        alright, a non-negligible subset of these are suicide by cop attempts. thats just as inconsiderate of their feelings as it would be of a loved ones feelings, except now there is an additional person potentially screwed up just because the dead person believed a myth about their life insurance.
        KMag 5y ago
        > ... an additional person potentially screwed up just because the dead person believed a myth ... The police and the loved ones will presumably both be emotionally better off if the person believes the myth, because the myth reduces suicide rates. We are in agreement that the myth reduces suicide rates... right? Or are we talking right past each other here? So, looking at just the cases at the margin where the difference is believing the myth or not believing the myth, the statements would be "because a dead person didn't believe the myth" or "because the myth tricked someone into living". We're talking about increased or decreased probabilities, but pushing the probabilistic argument to the extreme, there are no dead people who believe the myth (at the margin where the myth is the deciding factor). There are lots of good arguments against prolonging the myth, but sparing the feelings of police and loved ones falls on the side of prolonging the myth.
        vmception 5y ago
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    It may prevent people from committing suicide, but it also may prevent people from asking for payouts when they are entitled to them. It also causes the seriously in pain to continue suffering in an attempt to find some other way to die for their families sake.
    - KMag 5y ago
      Very good points.
KMag 5y ago
I think the GP is speculating that the perp was in a position to nearly force the police to mortally wound him. Given they had already shot him once, presumably waving a gun in their direction would have drawn a mortal wound.
MichaelBurge 5y ago
Isn't the insurance payout the proceeds of crime? Since shooting at the FBI(a crime) is in the causal chain of events leading to his estate receiving a payout of money, the estate should forfeit that payout.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  It is a crime they may have been accused of under other circumstances, but legally (assuming life insurance eligibility is the question), it is not one they will have been convicted of (obviously). I also strongly suspect that drunk drivers who die in a car crash have their life insurance paid out; that’s also a crime.
  - jjtheblunt 5y ago
    good point regarding drunk drivers; i had not thought of that.
nickphx 5y ago
It depends if his policy has a clause that terminates coverage if you're killed while committing a felony.

vmception 5y ago

According to this source, most plans have just an “exclusion period” like 2 years after opening the plan where suicide would not be covered but may result in a refund of premium payments, after that period seems like they pay out in full https://www.coverage.com/insurance/life/the-truth-about-suicide-life-insurance/ https://www.coverage.com/insurance/life/the-truth-about-suic...

KMag 5y ago
"Life insurance won't pay out if you commit suicide" sounds like a common misconception/noble lie worth perpetuating. On the one hand, I'm generally in favor of trusting people to make the right decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances if they're given enough information. On the other hand, if that one piece of information means the difference between life and death... then I feel a bit more confident in asserting that everyone is probably better off with them living.
- vmception 5y ago
  It makes more sense to raise the premiums on people prone to it or just refund the premiums, which is also based in reality. Protects the insurance pool all the same and better. I don't think random inaccuracies about suicide repercussions are worth perpetuating, it just perpetuates the ignorance about the subject and general unwillingness to discuss the nuances of the subject
  - KMag 5y ago
    I agree with your first point, but it's orthogonal to the question if people who would commit suicide given enough money goes to their loved ones should be tricked into not committing suicide. And, as far as the utility argument is concerned, the insurance pool is best off if they're tricked into staying alive and paying into the pool. As to your second point, I agree in general with reducing ignorance about suicide, but this one misconception feels... somehow worth the lie. I agree it's not the most objectively rational position to take, but if the money is the only thing making the difference between life and death, I feel like it's better they pretend the money isn't there, and it's easier to pretend if they don't know they're pretending.
    - vmception 5y ago
      alright, a non-negligible subset of these are suicide by cop attempts. thats just as inconsiderate of their feelings as it would be of a loved ones feelings, except now there is an additional person potentially screwed up just because the dead person believed a myth about their life insurance.
      - KMag 5y ago
        > ... an additional person potentially screwed up just because the dead person believed a myth ... The police and the loved ones will presumably both be emotionally better off if the person believes the myth, because the myth reduces suicide rates. We are in agreement that the myth reduces suicide rates... right? Or are we talking right past each other here? So, looking at just the cases at the margin where the difference is believing the myth or not believing the myth, the statements would be "because a dead person didn't believe the myth" or "because the myth tricked someone into living". We're talking about increased or decreased probabilities, but pushing the probabilistic argument to the extreme, there are no dead people who believe the myth (at the margin where the myth is the deciding factor). There are lots of good arguments against prolonging the myth, but sparing the feelings of police and loved ones falls on the side of prolonging the myth.
        vmception 5y ago
- HWR_14 5y ago
  It may prevent people from committing suicide, but it also may prevent people from asking for payouts when they are entitled to them. It also causes the seriously in pain to continue suffering in an attempt to find some other way to die for their families sake.
  - KMag 5y ago
    Very good points.

KMag 5y ago

I think the GP is speculating that the perp was in a position to nearly force the police to mortally wound him. Given they had already shot him once, presumably waving a gun in their direction would have drawn a mortal wound.

MichaelBurge 5y ago

Isn't the insurance payout the proceeds of crime? Since shooting at the FBI(a crime) is in the causal chain of events leading to his estate receiving a payout of money, the estate should forfeit that payout.

sokoloff 5y ago
It is a crime they may have been accused of under other circumstances, but legally (assuming life insurance eligibility is the question), it is not one they will have been convicted of (obviously). I also strongly suspect that drunk drivers who die in a car crash have their life insurance paid out; that’s also a crime.
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  good point regarding drunk drivers; i had not thought of that.

nickphx 5y ago

It depends if his policy has a clause that terminates coverage if you're killed while committing a felony.