What do PPDers think of the idea (which isn't much more than that for now) of divorce insurance?

your_mom_on_drugs · 2015-12-07T12:19:21+00:00

Reading this sub made me wonder about the concept and I found this wikipedia article. Do you think this is a good idea? Something that is likely to become more...

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS24 points25 points26 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSandbergPrincipleMuh Soggy Knees1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:4[S] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Couldn't you just make it so the initiator of a divorce can't recieve a payout?

Yup. But who cares.

Me and my mate mindy do a deal....... Take out a nice fat policy.... She divorces me a year later.... FREE MONEY !!!!!

Plus it's a pretty big scam to pay premiums for 4 years, live with someone you don't really want to be married to, to just get not much more than you have paid in all those years (one of the websites I saw said that $16 a month covered $1200 payout - which after the 4 years goes up by $250 a year) Your total profit can't be worth all the trouble?

If the total profit is NOT worth all the trouble.... Then the insurance ain't worth the insurance !

Because you might as well just put the premiums in the bank UNLESS the policy pays out more (as a legitimate customer). If it does pay out more, then an illegitimate customer makes a profit.

I know a lot of green card applicants who might be interested ;)

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't buy for a second that insurance companies can profitably handle countless other forms of insurance but wouldn't be able to make this work.

Because ALL those other forms of insurance are concerning events that you cannot voluntarily engage in and, if you did, would be fraud.

This can only EVER be voluntarily engaged in. Thats the difference.

It's like insuring someone against "selling their car"

They would literally pay hundreds of MBAs and attorneys to craft a policy that would cover nearly every fraudulent scenario you can think of,

Except for the ONE scenario the insurance HAS to cover....Your wife divorceing you. Which she does of her own free will.

So as long as you are married. And she DOES divorce you. It's got to pay.

There is no way to stop that being pre-arranged.

and that would still make money even with some fraudulent claims paid out.

No, not unless the insurance paid out a lot LESS than the savings you'd have putting the premiums in the bank.

There is a reason why only 2 companies (apparently) have even attempted this....Despite about a billion insurance co's covering a million otgher life events... Because the action that triggers the insurance is a voluntary action.

What clauses would you insert that wouldn't just as easily be "passed" by a frudster as a real divorce ? There aren't any.

Any checks you put in place...will NOT be able to distinguish between a "woman leaving her hubby because she hates him" and a "woman leaving her hubby because they'd agreed to do so to reap the insurance".

Both cases (barring a panopticon recording every conversation they ever had) would be completely identical from the insurance companies standpoint.

[–]disposable_pants0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because ALL those other forms of insurance are concerning events that you cannot voluntarily engage in and, if you did, would be fraud.

If you file for divorce, you can't collect.

There is no way to stop that being pre-arranged.

If you want to collect, you allow your insurance company to work with your lawyer to ensure that you lose as little money as possible. Maybe your policy even requires that your company chooses your lawyer. This would prevent lopsided, pre-arranged settlements.

No, not unless the insurance paid out a lot LESS than the savings you'd have putting the premiums in the bank.

Insurance policies aren't designed such that every individual customer account runs in the black; they're designed with the understanding that the firm will take significant losses on some accounts and make good money on most others. Say I sell 10 policies for a one-time fee of $10,000 each. If one person has their spouse divorce them and I pay out $50,000, I still walk away with $50,000 in profit. Obviously the numbers would change, but that's the concept.

There is a reason why only 2 companies (apparently) have even attempted this

There could be many reasons why this isn't an established form of insurance. The simplest two are A) companies have ran the numbers and determined other forms of insurance are significantly more profitable, or B) there isn't a market for it. Pre-nups are already uncommon because people don't want to think or talk about divorce before the marriage even starts; why wouldn't it be the same with insurance?

What clauses would you insert that wouldn't just as easily be "passed" by a frudster as a real divorce ?

You've given me a few fraud ideas, I've shown you how to design a policy around them. Even if I can't think of an idea to handle the majority of fraudulent cases, what makes you think a company with billions at their disposal wouldn't be able to?

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you file for divorce, you can't collect.

But SHE can file. It's under her control. It's not a random event. It's an event a human can voluntarily engage in and trigger the insurance and leave the pair, at the end of the day better off than before.

$100k insurance. $200k in assets.

Wife files for divorce. $300k. Ta Da !

A divorce she can voluntarily engage in without having to give reason.

A money making machine.

If you want to collect, you allow your insurance company to work with your lawyer to ensure that you lose as little money as possible. Maybe your policy even requires that your company chooses your lawyer. This would prevent lopsided, pre-arranged settlements

Doesn't matter. There is more money at the end. BFs and GFs would just get married and take insurance. Knowing that when it naturally ended..... Free extra money!

Insurance policies aren't designed such that every individual customer account runs in the black; they're designed with the understanding that the firm will take significant losses on some accounts and make good money on most others. Say I sell 10 policies for a one-time fee of $10,000 each. If one person has their spouse divorce them and I pay out $50,000, I still walk away with $50,000 in profit. Obviously the numbers would change, but that's the concept.

But no one would run in the red. Every time the qualification period was up, they'd just divorce. Ta Da! Free money!

Every time a relationship ends (longer than the qual period). Free money!

A valid marriage and a valid divorce are just that. Every couple can get validly married. Put their assets in a pot. Insure half the pot. Then divorce and add 50% to total assets. Then, after any waiting period (whoever they've slept with in the meantime) have a valid divorce. And .... Free money!

And it's not fraud. All those actions are indistinguishable from valid actions.

There could be many reasons why this isn't an established form of insurance. The simplest two are A) companies have ran the numbers and determined other forms of insurance are significantly more profitable, or B) there isn't a market for it. Pre-nups are already uncommon because people don't want to think or talk about divorce before the marriage even starts; why wouldn't it be the same with insurance?

No. There is a 3rd reason. One responsible for more than the two above combined. You can't insure voluntary actions at a rate that would generate a profit. That rules out most markets.

You can't insure a man, say, on a house joint owned with a wife for fire.... And expect it to pay out if she sets the fire.

That's what your divorce insurance does. Insured for a fire where the whole point of the insurance is it pays out when she sets the fire and with setting a fire being a perfectly legal act.

It sets a system up where it's perfectly legal to have houses and burn them down every time the insurance qualification period is up. Legally. Validly. In a way compketely indistinguishable from what you'd consider a 'valid' divorce.

You've given me a few fraud ideas, I've shown you how to design a policy around them. Even if I can't think of an idea to handle the majority of fraudulent cases, what makes you think a company with billions at their disposal wouldn't be able to?

You don't get it. Car insurance doesn't pay out if you set your own car afire.

Any way you cut it .... Marriage insurance, if it gives a positive return over "just putting the premiums in the bank", is a scheme for allowing you perfectly legally.....

Leave college with a gal you like. Immediately get hitched and pool assets but otherwise live exactly as you would as gf and BF. And when you do eventually break up, or even if you dont create yourself free money by divorcing when the qualifying period is up.

Once the insurance is paid... you are legally free agents and can do whatever you want with your lives and your own funds.

There is no way to distinguish this from a 'traditional' marriage. It is in every way as equally valid. The same actions occur. EVERYONE with an insurance policy can cash in at qualification period +1 day.

And as long as that is profitable they will. They'll just file, and take the cash.

[–]lbspredh0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:4[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lbspredh-1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:4[S] 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]disposable_pants1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which they absolutely would. No company would pay out a dime based on simple proof of marriage and divorce

Then just what is insured ?

Someone would have to stand to lose assets in order for insurance money to be paid out.

Absolutely. This insurance is a "double your assets in X years" device where X is the required minimum duration of the marriage. Pair up at college exit, save up, wait your time. Divorce once minimum period expires... Take payout.

A divorce where both parties just go their separate ways and there's nothing lost wouldn't qualify.

Why not. If I'm insured, and my wife divorced and takes half the assets what is the insurance covering me for if it doesn't replace those assets ?

So unless you A) stand to lose a lot in the divorce and B) were wiling to risk all of that going in you wouldn't participate in this type of fraud.

But what risk ? Right from the start the two of you knew you'd be doubling assets after X years. You not get insured. You split the assets half each. You each double up with the insurance. $50k turned into $100k. Use it to pay off your student loans.

And if you did stand to lose a lot, that means you're decently well-off,

Or have been saving as hard as possible for your X years knowing you'll double anything saved at the end as long as you fill out your paperwork.

so why even engage in massive, elaborate insurance fraud in the first place?

What insurance fraud ?

You were genuinely married, check.

You genuinely gained assets, check.

You waited out the required period, check.

You got divorced exactly how couples do all over the world entirely legally, check.

You collected your payouts, also entirely legally having fulfilled the terms of the contract, check.

That's the point I'm trying to make. It's not fraud and cannot be proved as such.... If the minimum period is 4 years... And you've been living together that period... Then there is no way to prove fraud.

This is why insurers only generally insure for actions that are NOT voluntary (eg fire, death, sickness). Then anyone voluntarily doing it is committing fraud. However, with a divorce, it can ONLY be done voluntarily. There is no means to discover fraud.

Although, I guess, if you stipulated "insured can't file" then it's only a device that can add 50% to assets rather than 100%.

[–]lbspredh1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:4[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]lbspredh3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:4[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVEPositive Pill!0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVEPositive Pill!1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]joseremarqueLSD+MDMA1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]I_TRY_TO_BE_POSITIVEPositive Pill!0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirNemesistitties not tithe0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]your_mom_on_drugs1 Corinthians 7:4[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	What do PPDers think of the idea (which isn't much more than that for now) of divorce insurance?
Author	your_mom_on_drugs
Upvotes	7
Comments	36
Date	December 7, 2015 12:19 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3vs74c/what_do_ppders_think_of_the_idea_which_isnt_much/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-do-ppders-think-of-the-idea-which-isnt-much.278053 https://theredarchive.com/post/278053

Comments