I looked up the articles on Justin Ross Harris to see what they said about his trial and the first twenty of them that came up from Google during the month before and after his trial didn't mention insurance once, or at least not in the articles. One of those twenty articles mentioned it in the comments section.
Major networks collect an enormous amount of money from insurance companies and they make a lot of profit from selling insurance any way they can, even on babies.
There may not be a large number of children killed for insurance money, or at least it may not seem that way, since they’re not reported that often; however even that is too much. I've been able to find close to two dozen, if not more, searching the internet that are relatively recent which were probably killed for insurance. There may also be some other cases where they convicted the wrong person as a result of insurance raising possible motives which were later considered misleading. This estimate is probably conservative and the number of adults killed for insurance definitely runs into hundreds or thousands.
And there is no good reason why insurance companies should be marketing this to families in the first place; especially since they mostly target the most gullible people that fall for their deceptive sales pitches; and when they succeed it is often the children that pay the price.
Edit Since I posted this article Gerber Life has blocked me on Twitter after I began letting some of their customers know about their scam details below.
Insurance and media executives make an enormous amount of profits off of these policies; but they never tell you that the more they pay themselves, or in some cases the people that literally get away with murder the less is available for legitimate claims!
And these insurance companies should know that it is inevitable that some troubled people will, however rarely, kill their kids for money, if they get desperate enough. It's been happening for well over a hundred years and insurance companies have much better records on this than the majority of the public.
They also know that this is an enormously profitable business because it is a scam, that rarely ever pays out since most of these policies almost certainly lapse long before anyone can collect on them and even if they don’t, it take an enormous amount of time to build up much if any value unless your lucky enough to have your child die at a young age before you pay much in premiums.
This isn’t of course how they market insurance for kids or anyone else for that matter; however if you understand the relatively simple basic principles of insurance that it would be easy to realize that it should always be kept to a minimum if it is bought at all, unless you’re trying to commit insurance fraud!
Insurance is pooled risk, where everyone participating pays into a pool of money, the administrative costs, and in the case of for profit companies profits are subtracted then when one person has an emergency they can use money out of that pool of saved for disasters.
They can never pay out more than they pull in, or even as much as they pull in without going bankrupt so consumers can never get 100% on average of the money they put in. Like gambling a small percentage can get more than they put in, often much more, which makes it seem appealing, assuming you can beat the odds; however that money has to come from somewhere, which means many more losers to pay for the small number of winners.
It’s like reverse gambling; If they have a disaster they win by using it to cut their losses.
This used to be understood but it is never mentioned anymore. The corporations that control all the discussion about it have a financial incentive to confuse the issue, because they get a cut of the loot being paid on premiums.
Politicians also have an incentive to ignore basic principles because they collect an enormous amount of campaign contributions from insurance companies.
What few people recognize is that the more insurance companies spend of campaign contributions, advertising and many other administrative costs, the less they have to pay claims.
You can’t change that ever any more than you can change the fact that two plus two equals four!
The more money people get paid to spin this the less there is available for claims!
That doesn't mean that they don't try as you might know if you’ve ever heard a pitch from an insurance salesman.
Most good insurance agents are of course great guys that tell a good story and most of their customers probably don’t want to think bad of them.
Seriously they are great guys! Would you let them scam you if they weren’t friendly with a convincing story?
Part of the reason they’re such great guys is that they get a cut of the loot being stolen from you so they know how to butter you up and spin a good story. But if they spend all this time buttering you up and most of them get paid more than their customers where tdo you think they get money to pay out claims? The more they get in commission the worse the deal the customer gets, and unless you’re greater at fraud than the smooth talking salesman your not getting your money’s worth.
So every year hundreds of people get killed for insurance money; and if you look through enough of these stories it is clear that many of the murderers get paid off and they often don’t get exposed as murderers until they need more money and do it again, eventually getting caught.
There is no way of knowing how much of your premium money is being used to pay off murderers since they don’t disclose this and even if they did they wouldn’t know unless the murderers get caught so the ones that got away with it without doing it again may never be exposed.
Children don’t have lobbyists and they don’t have the right to consent to their insurance policies that in some cases might put them at risk.
Not that most parents that buy these insurance policies have bad intentions at all; however they do attract a few troubled parents that might act out of desperation and more of them than most people realize are killing their kids out of desperation or serious mental illness.The good parents often fall for deceptive pitches about "saving for the future;" however these pitches never stand up to scrutiny if people understand basic principles of pooled risk or insurance.
You would think that if they had access to rational education that there wouldn’t even be a market for this at all; however there are very few people warning uneducated parents or poor people about many scams and there are a lot of well paid college educated people that study how to pitch scams like this for a variety of reasons.
And in some cases there are additional damages when the few fanatics kill kids, including one incident where a father handed out poisonous candy to several other kids in an attempt to hide his crime, and there have been several examples where fires have been set in attempts, successful or not to kill people for insurance which could have led to the deaths of other people, and in some cases probably did.
As I reported previously in Life Insurance and media companies are encouraging lots of murders there were also plenty of examples of people blowing up air planes for a while, Between 1949 and 1965 there were nine planes mostly in the USA or Canada blown up for insurance and they managed to cut down on this dramatically one way or another.
If potential buyers look up reviews on the internet they’ll get a large variety of them, including some of them listed below; however most of them are shallow weighing the polices as if there are pros to compare with the cons, which indicates they may have some value, when they don’t One of the better reviews by Helaine Olen comes right out and calls it a rip off, in the following excerpts; however even she doesn’t mention the basics of insurance which would indicate that almost all insurance should be kept to a minimum, if it is bought at all:
|The Gerber Life Grow-Up Plan: a life insurance plan that no child needs.|
Even she carefully uses the phrase “that almost no child needs,” instead of coming right out and saying absolutely no child needs it, and that pooled risk can never provide a hundred percent return on payments for the average policy holder. She acknowledges that "poverty-stricken moms and dads" appear to be the target customer for this plan, which makes it even more outrageous since they’re scamming them from the little money they have, and these parents are often the least educated people and might, in some cases be more at risk when it comes to social problems.
When it comes to the most troubled at risk parents the most powerful institutions, including insurance companies, the media that advertises their products and rights positive reviews that help them sell their scams and the government controlled by politicians taking donations from these oligarchies are far more concerned with scamming at-risk parents for profit than they are with helping them avoid trouble and protect children!
Fortunately there are exceptions, although socially conscious researchers and non-profit organizations don’t have nearly as many resources or political clout as the scam artists. As I indicated in my recent post Obama’s Opposition to Corporal Punishment Needs to be Finished by Grassroots one of the leading causes of escalating violence is early child abuse and corporal punishment which teaches violence. John B. King the outgoing Secretary of Education has come out strongly against it recently advising people how eliminating it might help improve child development and avoid escalating violence.
There are many other programs that could help include the following described by psychologist James Garbarino, who specializes in dealing with children and understanding how they turn violent and how to prevent it:
And tax payers have to foot the bill for enormous expenses when they have to charge parents with murder or insurance fraud. This expense isn’t passed on to insurance companies, who happen to donate enormous amounts of money to political campaigns, nor is it covered by other policy holders. The polices promoted by James Garbarino, and other child welfare advocates, whether it is the home visitor program or many others that actually have a proven track record, are far more effective preventing violence, or at least making it much less likely than solving these problems after the fact with prison, court and other legal expenses, which are much higher.
Why don’t they charge these insurance companies with fraud, which they’re doing on an enormous scale?
When policy holders commit fraud against insurance companies, especially in extreme cases like United States v. Abdelhaq, Dina, 00-1894 (7th Cir. 2001) they don’t hesitate to charge them with fraud as a result of “desperation for gambling money and her practice of defrauding insurance companies;” however when fraud against policy holders has become institutionalized and routine they don’t even consider the possibility that they might be providing a motive for the murders that are done for insurance. A reasonable defense for the insurance companies might be that they never intended for it to be used this way; however when the nature of the transaction is always fraudulent or deceptive and few if any consumers that aren’t better at committing fraud than the insurance companies ever get their money’s worth this defense isn’t very good. This defense would be even worse if they considered the incredibly long history of people killing for insurance money that goes back decades.
If this was carefully considered then reasonable people would recognize that this type of transaction isn’t worth the costs in most cases; and if there are exceptions then at least they should make an effort to provide accurate information to consumers about the basics of pooled risk so they would understand what they’re buying.
Instead they pass “proprietary information” or “trade secret” laws that enable insurance companies to keep any research that they might do secret so that negative externalities or outright fraud is not public. They can take advantage of these laws to keep records of how many policy holders lapse in their coverage so that they have an advantage over the customer, and they can also keep track of how many people are killed as a result of attempts to collect on insurance fraud without letting citizens, sincere researchers and lawmakers that want to minimize them know about many of the most important statistics that might help them do this.
To add additional problems there is at least one high profile case where there may be some doubt about whether or not they convicted the right person, perhaps as a result of racial prejudices or other reasons in the South. About three years ago the high profile case of Sherry West and her son who was shot and killed had a lot of complicated twists and turn and she wasn’t charged, but there was enough evidence to raise serious doubts; and either insurance provided her with a motive to kill her own son or, if the conviction of two black teens was justified it provided evidence to falsely implicate her.
According to, Trial Begins for Teen Accused of Killing Baby 08/16/2013 ‘Ashley Glassey, 21, revealed the subject of conversations she had with her mother after the shooting. "Glassey said she started to have her doubts after receiving a phone call from her mother telling her that her brother, Antonio Santiago, had been killed. She claims the night of the shooting her mother asked, 'How soon do you think life insurance policy will send me a check?,' according to the First Coast News website.’
On top of that Georgia murder of baby complicated by evidence of gun powder residue on hands of both parents 07/20/2013; however when this went to trial the two black teens were convicted. At first they didn’t have any evidence against the teens until Argie Brooks, who collected a $2,000 reward and expected another $8,000 after a conviction,, told police about the suspects. One of them testified against the other and was given a reduced sentence. He claimed the older one was the one who shot the baby and wasn’t given his sentence until two years afterwards and given time served, in return for his testimony.
The case was much more complicated than that and I put plenty of sources below; however it was confusing enough to raise doubts about whether the right person was convicted at all. There was plenty of evidence to indicate that the mother had lots of emotional problems and that she ahd a hard time keeping her story straight. Either the insurance raised doubts about her possibly implicating her falsely, or the insurance provided an incentive for her to kill her own son and led to false convictions of two teens plus the mother of one of the teens who was also charged for allegedly disposing of the gun. Either way there was no reason for the insurance to exist at all.
This wasn’t the only case where the existence of insurance lead to either an incentive to kill or false evidence that resulted in a false conviction; David Camm an Indiana police officer was convicted twice partially because of the circumstantial evidence that he had insurance on his wife and allegedly killed both her and their two children. This was overturned and he was released and the details are as confusing as this one, leaving a possibility that the final results may not have been reliable. Debra Milke also was convicted partially because she had insurance on her own son and served twenty five years before her conviction was overturned.
Regardless of whether or not some of these cases led to the right killer or not the insurance served no purpose except to increase profits for the insurance companies. The original purpose, which people understood decades ago was that they only bought insurance to cut losses and when the wage earner lost his life this would ensure that women and children wouldn’t be left destitute. There is no financial loss when a baby dies; quite the opposite the family will then have much less expenses.
So why isn’t there any effort to inform the majority of the public about the basic fundamentals of insurance so they won’t fall for this scam?
Apparently because no one can finance the efforts to educate the public while the insurance companies can spend an enormous amount of the money they collect on selling policies on deceptive advertising. Adbusters has been trying to buy what they call uncomercials, telling people not to buy stuff, for years and many stations have been refusing to air them. There cases in court have had limited success, with the result that they continue refusing to air them and it only gets attention in the alternative media while most people never hear much about it according to several low profile stories including Can TV stations refuse to carry advertising? 04/13/2009
The result is that in practice the insurance companies get to air their deceptive ads all over the place and efforts to expose it are relegated to the fringes. More importantly research like that done by good academics, including James Garbarino, John B. King and many others gets very little attention except for those that seek it out. Even when John B. King spoke out against corporal punishment and attempted to tell the public about how it leads to escalating violence the media ignored him. Barack and Michelle Obama also remained silent, even though if they spoke out on his behalf the media would have felt obligated to give it more attention or draw attention to their own incompetence.
The result is that fraudulent speech that enables insurance companies and the media to get enormous profits while putting people including children at risk by providing an incentive for troubled people to kill gets an enormous amount of protection under the current use of the first amendment; however more sincere speech that could warn many people about this and go a long way to reduce violence is relegated to the fringe where only those that do their research will find it.
Killings for insurance continue happening year after year and the insurance companies make enormous profits without even being suspected, by most people, of being implicated thanks to the selective control of deceptive information.
The last time I looked into this I found that over 1% of the entries on Murderpedia were related to insurance and the search engine indicated it might have been as high as 14%. There is almost certainly some redundancy and further searching could almost certainly turn up over 2% or 3%; but a reasonably good guess is that it is probably between 4% and 8% of the entries on Murderpedia that are related to insurance. If that is the case then there are probably at least three hundred people killed every year for insurance, assuming about 2% of murders are insurance related; and possibly at least three or four times that.
Regardless of how many people are killed for the money there’s also an enormous amount that could be done to educate the public more about how to reduce violence and avoid falling for insurance scams if we ahd a more reliable media and political establishment, and in some cases where there is an active grassroots effort to educate people locally it is already happening, although they don’t report on that any more than they expose their own scams.
The following are some of the stories that I was able to find about children, mostly, that were killed for life insurance, or where it was at least implied as a possible motive but there are almost certainly many more:
Justin Ross Harris Trial: Everything You Need to Know 09/30/2016
Justin Ross Harris talked to family about collecting son's life insurance in days after death, warrants show 07/04/2014
Justin Ross Harris Dad Charged With Son's Hot Car Death Told Family How to Collect Life Insurance, Authorities Say 07/04/2014
Minn. Boy Barway Collins might have been killed for insurance, Pierre Collins dad’s charges say 04/13/2016
Garrett Eldred Wilson, the Maryland Father’s First Trial To Begin; Two Babies’ Deaths Initially Tied to SIDS 09/14/2012 In February, Dina Abdellhaq, a 34-year-old addicted gambler deeply in debt, was convicted of killing her 23-day-old daughter, Tara, for a $200,000 life insurance policy. In that Illinois case, defense attorneys argued that Tara died of SIDS, in much the same way that her sister, Lena, just 18 days old, died in 1994.
United States v. Abdelhaq, Dina, 00-1894 (7th Cir. 2001) 12/1/2016 The fact that she took out a $200,000 life-insurance policy on her infant a month before it died even though she was on public aid and deeply in debt for her gambling losses and the infant’s death would not have imposed significant costs on her is suspicious.
Baby of Addicted Mother Is Killed for Insurance Money Dina Abdelhaq of Hickory Hills, IL March, 1999
John Dale Cavaness, a 'respected' doctor in Illinois, was actually a cold-blooded psycho who killed two of his sons to collect insurance Dec. 13, 1984
Moussa Sissoko Father Found Guilty of Killing 3-Month-Old Son for Life Insurance Money He began arranging the $750,000 insurance shortly after his son was born. 03/28/2016
Demetrius P. Guyton Evangelist, Inspirational Speaker, and Author of: The Chosen One: A Touch From Above Guyton still carries the physical scars from the day that his biological mother tried to kill him at the Walker Regional Medical Center in Jasper, Alabama, the same hospital in which he was born to collect a $25,000 insurance policy when he was only two months old. However, he said an encounter with Christ while in prison has healed his emotional wounds.
Karl Karlsen who killed NY son for insurance money now charged in first wife's death in a 1991 house fire just after taking out a $200,000 policy on her life 08/29/2014
Mommy Needs Money: Why Ellen Boehm aka Ellen Kay Booker Murdered Two of Her Three Children 04/19/2016
Murderpedia: Christie Michelle Scott 08/16/2008 Christie Michelle Scott was 30 when she murdered her 6-year-old son and committed arson in Russellville, Alabama, on August 16, 2008.
Ronald “The Candy Man” O’Bryan : The Man Who Killed Halloween 10/06/2016
Wikipedia Ronald Clark O'Bryan October 31, 1974
Jury finds Deborah & Timothy Nicholls parents killed 3 kids for insurance 12/05/2008
India: Did Rakhi Balpande Monster Mom Kill 13-Year-Old for Rs. 10-Lakh Insurance? 08/10/2015
Prince Rams: After a child’s death, a father, Joaquin Shadow Rams is charged and a mother finds a way to move on 12/12/2013
Frances Elaine Newton killed husband and two children 04-07-87 for insurance executed in Texas 09-14-05
Angela Garcia convicted in 2001 of setting fire that killed two daughters asks for new trial 11/2/2016 Motive allegedly for "renter's insurance"
Prosecutors: Father in arson case tried to shove daughter back into flaming house 09/11/2012 The criminal complaint depicts Armin Wand III as a man so desperate to escape his marital and financial problems that he enlisted his brother in a plot to murder his wife and four young children in their sleep by setting fire to their home for the insurance money.
Wikipedia: Debra Milke served twenty-five years for December 2, 1989 shooting death of her four-year-old son, before conviction was overturned. Milke had taken out a $5,000 life insurance policy on her son. Milke, however, who worked at an insurance agency, had not purposefully negotiated the policy, but obtained it as a part of her regular employee benefits package.
Leonardo Morita killed His wife, Lucy, 45, their three children, Clint, 10, Krishna, 14, and Rama, 15, and the family's 25-year-old housekeeper 05/29/1995
Diana Lumbrera killed six of her own children who had insurance between 1976 and 1990
Earle Dennison killed her two year old niece in 1952 to collect insurance
S.C. Mom Susan Hendricks Slaughtered Family After Praying With Them, Records Suggest 06/03/2013 ..... Earlier this year Hendricks, who claimed to have multiple personalities, admitted she murdered her family members so she could collect $700,000 in life insurance policies. ....
The case of De'Marquise Kareem Elkins was tried surprisingly quick especially considering how complicated it was and the amount of evidence raising doubts about the conclusions. There was an enormous amount of public pressure to get a conviction at the time and plenty of shock value in the media at the extremely unusual circumstances of a black child allegedly shooting a baby over such a small amount of money.
The mother had a track record of emotional problems and apparently both her and the child’s father had gunshot residue on their hands. There was also a financial reward for the witness that initially implicated Elkins, which might have raised more doubts if he had better representation and more time to investigate.
A close look at the stories from this story hardly makes it seem so clear cut as the verdict implies; however it would require more direct investigation before challenging it.
As far as Gerber Life is concerned whether it is an accurate verdict or not there should be doubts about whether they should be selling life insurance for babies to emotional unstable parents, or anyone for that matter. If this had turned out to be done for insurance it would have been a much worse public relations disaster for Gerber Life; and people would have been much more likely to raise doubts about whether or not they should be providing incentives for emotionally unstable parents to kill their own kids.
I was unable to find out whether or not they actually paid out or not. However the relatively small pay out, no more than $50,000 might not have been nearly as damaging to their profits as the publicity and lost sales if it was intentionally done for insurance.
Clearly if this verdict is accurate then Sherry West should be entitled to collect, assuming you think she should have been allowed to buy it at all. Yet any discussion of it would have been damaging to Gerber’s reputation and they would want this forgotten as quickly as possible.
They might actually have a financial incentive to prefer the verdict blaming Elkins even if they ahd to pay out presumably asking for minimal coverage from West who might also want to avoid suspicion if some people doubt this verdict. However a reasonable skeptic would doubt that they would have had anything to do with this verdict, since that would have involved cooperation from prosecutors and police and it is hard to imagine they would go to that much trouble, or that every one would remain quite about it. Therefore even though they have an incentive to prefer this verdict they have little or no opportunity to influence it.
But if more people knew about the details of selling life insurance for babies they might be outraged, as they should especially when they understand that the terms are rigged against the interests of the consumer.
Trial set in baby's murder; mother lost another child to violence in Gloucester County 08/17/2013
.... Defense attorneys have said in court filings they have audio recordings and documents showing the child's mother had dealings with Gerber Life Insurance Co. According to its website, Gerber Life sells life insurance policies for children starting as early as infancy. Coverage runs from $5,000 to $50,000.
Ashley L. Glassey, West's 21-year-old daughter, told television station WTLV of Jacksonville, Florida, soon after the shooting that her mother called her after Antonio was killed and asked, "How soon do you think the life insurance policy will send me a check?"
One of Elkins' lawyers interviewed Glassey on July 30 in Salem County Correctional Facility, where she was lodged in connection with an alleged shoplifting in Washington Township, Gloucester County. According to a transcript, Glassey declined to confirm the story. "I don't want to incriminate anyone," she said.
Her mother previously lived in Gloucester County, where she lost another child five years ago. West's 18-year-son, Shaun Glassey, died after he was stabbed in West Deptford in March 2008. Prosecutors in that case concluded that the 17-year-old who stabbed him had acted in self-defense after Glassey and others attacked him.
Defense attorneys in Antonio's murder case have also pointed to lab tests by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that found traces of gunshot residue on swabs taken from the hands of West and the boy's father, Louis Santiago. Reports filed in court say the GBI found a single microscopic particle of gunshot residue swabbed from the father's hands, while more than five particles showed up in swabs from West's hands. .... Daughter Of Georgia Mom Whose Baby Was Killed Claims Mom May Have Killed Him For Insurance Money 03/29/2013
Georgia murder of baby complicated by evidence of gun powder residue on hands of both parents 07/20/2013
Georgia man faces trial in killing of baby in stroller 08/18/2013
Daughter of Sherry West Georgia Mother Whose Baby Was Killed Says Mom May Have Killed Him for Life Insurance Money 03/29/2013
Teen 'who shot baby dead in his stroller during robbery' will suggest the boy's own PARENTS wanted him killed for insurance money 08/17/2013
Murderpedia: De'Marquise Kareem Elkins
... Earlier, the man who tipped Brunswick police to 18-year-old De’Marquise “Marky” Elkins and co-defendant Dominique Lang, 15, as suspects, testified that his conscience led him to act, not the reward.
“I didn’t do this for the reward money. Can I say this? Whoever had the guns to shoot a baby... I’m doing this for my conscience,” Argie Brooks said.
He has collected $2,000 and will get another $8,000 if Elkins and Lang are convicted. Lang, who testified that he saw Elkins shoot Antonio and his mother, will be tried separately. ...
The making of a racist travesty 07/31/2013
Grandmother of GA teens charged in baby’s shooting death: They’re innocent 07/29/2013
Dominique Lang, last defendant in March 2013 child murder, pleads guilty to attempt to commit armed robbery 03/31/2015
FREE 17 YEAR OLD DE'MARQUISE ELKINS and 15 YEAR OLD DOMINIQUE LANG! 2013
Mother of convicted baby killer De'Marquise Elkins to serve 10 years for throwing gun away 03/12/2014
Remember the two black teens who killed the baby? 07/25/2013
12 Female Poisoners Who Killed With Arsenic often for insurance successfully collecting
10 American Female Serial Killers
19 Moms Who Killed Their Kids
5 notorious, homicidal tales of life insurance fraud
21 Shocking Murder for Life Insurance Plots (#4 Was Caught on Video!)
Wikipedia: Mary Ann Cotton killed at least four husbands two lovers and her son for insurance money in nineteenth century
Wikipedia: Belle Gunness serial killer from beginning of twentieth century often for insurance By the August of 1900, she had murdered two of her four children along with her first husband, and after collecting on their life insurance policies, had moved to Indiana.
Wikipedia: Nannie Doss 11/2/2016 Doss murdered her two young grandsons and several husbands for insurance money between the 1920s and 1954.
Pastor who conspired to kill for insurance admits targeting others 08/26/2011 Charged with murder of an adult but had taken out policies on others including daughter
Million Dollar Baby Greed, Children, Life Insurance and Murder Apr 28, 2014
14 useless insurance policies
Why You Need Life Insurance for Your Child It can help your child pay for college and a home 07/27/2015
Should You Buy Life Insurance for Your Kids? 06/04/2014
The Hows And Whys Of Life Insurance For Children 01/27/2016
Murdered for life insurance money! 10/26/2010
Edit Blocked by Gerber Life on Twitter 02/22/2017; Since posting this article I have let some of the people who have been tweeting about Gerber Life or other insurance policies about how it is a scam. Clearly Gerber Life took notice and blocked me on Twitter although I didn’t notice when it happen I suspect it was at least a couple of weeks ago. They clearly can’t be happy that I’m letting people know about their scam but that is almost certainly all they can, or will do.
I have no doubt that the claims in this article are accurate and that Gerber Life is the one misleading the public so there is little or no doubt that they wouldn’t want to draw any more attention to this than I have already done; and truth is supposed to be a defense against libel, so they shouldn’t have any case at all if they claimed this was libel.
However there have been dozens of examples where large corporations have attempted to sue or intimidate people that have exposed their scams. At least half a dozen or a dozen that I have seen have been reported by investigators like Marion Nestle and Naomi Klein. Sometimes what they do is try to scare people into remaining silent and when they bring frivolous cases they often try to find some trivial point that they can claim victory on. They did this with the notorious Mc-Libel case where they found in favor of McDonald’s but admitted that their critics had many legitimate points and it did far more to draw attention to their problems than it would have if they ignored it; and many people thought that McDonald’s wouldn’t have won at all without favorable treatment from courts which often cater to corporate interests with political connections.
Marion Nestle also faced a threat when she published her book, “Food Politics” and got a cease and desist letter demanding that she withdraw her book, because it was libelous. However she was well informed about the subject matter and let them know if there was any mistakes they should give her the details and she would publish a retraction. They never got back to her.
It was a bluff which lawyers often try to use to scare people when they have no case; but it backfired when she wrote about this intimidation tactic in a follow up addition.
Food Politics is much more popular than my blog so it is highly unlikely that if I got a cease and desist letter, which I don’t expect, and reported it on line calling their bluff that it would attract as much attention, but it would be more damaging to Gerber Life than if they hope that I go away or don’t get much attention.
A frivolous lawsuit trying to intimidate people would get far more attention and even though I don’t get as much coverage as Marion Nestle that would have a chance of going viral which virtually guarantees that they’re unlikely to do any more about it.
Also if they were inclined to sue someone for libel they would have already sued Helaine Olen who exposed their scam before me, and she gets more attention. They would have to either include her in their suit or they would have to argue that I went farther than her, which in some ways I did; but that would only draw attention to additional problems with their scam.
They have an enormous propaganda advantage by using a cut of their loot to buy advertising and give the media a chance to get in on the action and an incentive to minimize reporting if more kids are killed for insurance money which inevitably they will be although not nearly as often as adults are killed for insurance money which, as I said happens hundreds of times per year.
Some people might find it creepy discussing this, as perhaps they should but the creepiest thing is that an insurance company is providing financial incentive for the credulous and desperate to kill their kids.
Marketing people understand the fundamentals of propaganda include repeating claims over and over again and making them seem simple and positive. This works especially well if they can avoid any contradictory beliefs. In the case of the worst insurance policies, including this one, they can’t stand up to the most fundamental scrutiny so in order to succeed they have to avoid any scrutiny, which they do since the most power full institutions including the media that collect advertising revenue have an incentive to remain silent about the serious problems.
They typically make it seem like an investment and some of their pitches can be very compelling. I once heard one first hand from a very friendly insurance agency that claimed that insurance was no longer about just cutting losses but made a convincing case that it is also about investment in the stock market bringing outside revenue making it worthwhile; which I actually bought briefly before I did a little research; and wondered if it was so effective why wouldn’t they risk their own money. Also if you invest in the stock market through an insurance agency there is a middle man which cuts the returns since they take a cut, and the enormous size of that cut is hidden in the fine print which most people don’t understand.
Judging by this job advertising there should be major doubts about whether or not they inform their workers minding the phones about the basics of Insurance which shouldn’t be surprising. They almost certainly give them the same propaganda they want their customers to believe, if they have any choice and if any workers ask about the flaws in insurance they would almost certainly be let go, or not hired in the first place.
Few if any people would ever even consider doing this type of work if they understood how outrageous it is.
Furthermore if they’re scamming their own customers do you think there is any doubt that they would scam their workers as well leading them to believe they have room for growth?
Also “a bonus based on production every two weeks” is essentially a commission; which means that it is that much less money available to the pool of money available to pay out clams. As I said the more bureaucratic spending they have the worse the deal is for customers.