Skip to main content

View Diary: Young, Disabled, & both parents dead, he came to ask for help. (253 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, luvmovies2000, ShadowSD

    I'm not sure that Disney was the first to use it, so don't quote me on that. I suppose the same could be said for some other companies (speaking hypothetically but I can see Bill Packard of Hewlett-Packard being covered, or Debbie Fields of Mrs. Fields Cookies) but it definitely made sense to me when I first learned of it, in that narrow, specific context.

    What doesn't make sense to me is how/why companies can get away with it when it comes to regular employees vs. those "key employees". Apparently, Congress lets them.

    •  Why make new law when the concept of insurable (0+ / 0-)

      interest is central to the law as it has existed for centuries; it's a shame no lawyer ever sued on behalf of families who lost a member and saw their former employer from years before cash in, and took the matter to the Supreme Court.  

      (On a broader note, I worry sometimes that our inclination lately, based to some degree on our recent political victories, is to demand the executive branch do what we don't want to wait for the legislative branch to do, and to expect the legislative branch to do what we don't want to wait for the judicial branch to do; it is an understandable inclination, since at the moment the current President is more progressive than Congress which is more progressive than the current Supreme Court, but restoring the balance of powers as outlined in the Constitution was one of the goals and benefits of our victory in 2008)

      Republicans criticizing Democrats on torture is like a bunch of foxes complaining that the henhouse wasn't well guarded enough.

      by ShadowSD on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 10:40:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  IANAL (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ShadowSD, Lujane

        However, it does appear to have been litigated.

        http://moneycentral.msn.com/...

        •  Thanks for the link, IANAL either (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lujane

          But here is the key quote I got from your article:

          The controversy helped convince Walt Disney and Wal-Mart, among others, to drop the policies. Winn-Dixie battled the IRS in court, but the supermarket chain recently lost its final round when the Supreme Court refused to review a lower court decision that backed the IRS.

          So far, one company has prevailed against the IRS -- Dow Chemical, which took out the policies on more than 21,000 workers. A U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan ordered the IRS to return $22.2 million plus interest to the company. The IRS has appealed the ruling.

          Sounds like the judicial route is the way, and that the Supreme Court has already made its position clear, leaving little doubt to how the Dow case will ultimately be resolved; as I suspected, no US Supreme Court is going to undermine the entire concept of insurable interest with a binding precedent because the implications are too chaotic.  Note that they refused to even review the Winn Dixie case.

          I'll be thrilled if Congress does something, sure, but I'm not holding my breath; this entire corporate shell game over the last few decades appears to have rested on not having the issue adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and now that the high court has refused to even review such a case on behalf of the corporations, the future of policies like this going forward is nil (provided people exercise their right in court when wronged).

          Which, ironically, means that now would be a better time than any for someone to try and bring a case challenging whether private insurance inherently violates the principle of requiring an insurable interest in the life of someone whose death a party stands to gain from; it's too bad that such a case is about twenty or thirty years too late in the sense that the insurance companies now constitute 1/14 of our economy, and cannot simply be obliterated overnight without serious economic repercussions to the average American.  

          Republicans criticizing Democrats on torture is like a bunch of foxes complaining that the henhouse wasn't well guarded enough.

          by ShadowSD on Thu Jun 11, 2009 at 01:13:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Excellent points. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ShadowSD, Lujane

            Completely agree with you. Especially this paragraph.

            Which, ironically, means that now would be a better time than any for someone to try and bring a case challenging whether private insurance inherently violates the principle of requiring an insurable interest in the life of someone whose death a party stands to gain from; it's too bad that such a case is about twenty or thirty years too late in the sense that the insurance companies now constitute 1/14 of our economy, and cannot simply be obliterated overnight without serious economic repercussions to the average American.

            Yes. Yes. Yes.

          •  Also, Thassa's got a poignant point. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lujane

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site