Hacker News Reader

Every life insurance policy I’ve ever read excludes acts of war. This would have to be a non-war mass casualty event like a Spanish Flu type of event.

I don't know about Prudential in particular, but most companies offering life insurance are also in the business of selling life annuities -- so an epidemic which triggers large insurance payouts might also dramatically cut their annuity liabilities.

> The Vietnam War claimed 1.3-4.2 million lives.

Of whom 58,318 were American. Over many, many years. In an era of mass conscription, very different to today.

Any mortality fluctuation big enough to mean Prudential is paying off on an extra 1.1% of its policies is going to hit just about every other big ordinary life and group life direct writer or reinsurer in the US similarly, and maybe even the large foreign reinsurers. The argument that the mortality fluctuation risk is a reason for breaking up Prudential depends on the either the premise that its insureds, in aggregate, may be significantly different from those of the other insurance companies, or on the fear that life insurance, a business around 200 years old, is a bad idea because most of the companies could be simultaneously impaired by a not implausible mortality fluctuation.

Furthermore, the amount of assets under management by Prudential, mentioned in the article as a reason to fear trouble at the company, is irrelevant to the mortality fluctuation argument, as those assets are largely in separate accounts walled-off from the life insurance business.

There is an argument to be made that some defense projects, perhaps Maven included, help to maintain the balance of power and thereby keep the peace. I would not rush to assume either position on the matter.

The total U.S. deaths in the Vietnam war+ from 1950-1975 were 58,209 over 25 years time (from the time the first U.S. 'military advisors' and funding arrived to the end of the war). That's not far from our maximum _annual_ automotive deaths (54,589). In recent years, with better automotive safety, we're down to 37,461 per year, but clearly the conclusion is to outlaw automobiles since they're far more dangerous than war.

Especially since insurance is more likely to cover automotive death than death in war.

In the kind of conflict with sudden death of at least 700,000 American civilians, financial crisis would be really down on the list of concerns.

Anyway, avoiding this kind of war does not depend on benevolence of America only. It's not helping when your senile opponent professes visions of nuclear martyrdom on TV.

Can you elaborate on the context in which the martyrdom statement was made.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/putin-lied-abo...

> The article also claims that "unexpected mortality" of 1.1% of its portfolio could bankrupt it. If a lot of people die suddenly, this could cause another economic crisis in the US.

Isn't that just a feature of insurance companies. My understanding is most large insurance companies are too big to fail and are an unexpected event from being insolvent and needing a taxpayer bailout.

As long as everything runs within the parameters they set up, they are fine raking in the premiums. Anything out of bounds and they are bankrupt. And as they tighten the parameters to squeeze out more profits, the less room they have for error.

Whether we like it or not, private insurers are backstopped by the government. A prime case of privatized profits and socialized risk.

I thought insurance companies confusingly yet sensibly has whole networks of meta-insurance in place for if they have to pay out more than they have in operating reserves for unexpected expenses.

Your conclusion is off. The most effective way to ensure peace is to have an invincible army.

A repeat of the Spanish flu would be one thing, and honestly I don't know how likely it is. Unlikely but hugely destructive would be one way to say it -- I also doubt there would be another potential candidate, because the only way for new super destructive diseases that don't burn themselves out before they spread would be to create the kind of European medieval city that for centuries killed more people than were born there and which was full of filth.

Does private life assurance pay out if you are killed war-fighting?

No.

Yes they can. It all depends on the policy. For example USAA routinely insures service members and those policies have a rider for dying in combat. And it is only a couple buck for a month on a normal $500k policy. When I retired I took that rider off.

Pretty much any insurance company does the same.

I price life insurance for a living. Combat death riders are not common.

I'm going to look at my policy, but I don't think it has any exclusion for combat deaths.

It almost certainly excludes any claims at all from any war between major powers - even your car insurance probably says that.

> Does private life assurance pay out if you are killed war-fighting?

That's only half the question.

The other half of the question is: do the people who die in war-fighting typically have private life insurance?

From my experience, the answer is a huge no. Most people go to war with government life insurance, simply because it's heavily pushed on them. They don't have a need for life insurance because they're unmarried 18-22 year old men, so I highly doubt that they have many non-SGLI policies.

The biggest reason people buy life insurance is because they're married and they have a mortgage. That disqualifies almost all of the military. Even if service members are married, they typically live in on-base housing and don't carry a mortgage.

For what it’s worth, conventional wars primarily kill young people who don’t have dependents and life insurance.

That's rather disingenuous.

The US lost approximately 60K that's 30K a year.