This is Part I of a two part series that uses some data and testimonies that don’t get a lot of air time where the Coronavirus is concerned.
In Part I, we look at the response from Insurance companies to the claim that a death benefit can be denied if the deceased passed away as a result of the COVID-19 vaccine. Fact is, there are several situations where a beneficiary can be denied their claim based on clauses buried with the policy. And however obvious the cause of death may be, the manner in which the dispute is categorized as an ambiguous irregularity will effectively prevent it from ever making it to the internet.
In addition, we’ll look at some of the inconsistencies that have characterized the way in which the virus has been defined and mitigated which make it very clear that the question on the table isn’t whether or not the virus is real as much as it’s the extent to which it’s been exploited.
Fact is, the virus is now a part of the human experience. The vaccine is not a bottom line, there will be additional variants and mandatory booster shots.
This is not going away.
But the things that will go away include the privacy, the security and the opportunity represented by a free, Democratic society. And if you read that last sentence and catch yourself scoffing – believing that to suspect what appears to be a logical and necessary collection of preventive measures as a godless power grab on the part of sinister parties, keep reading.
There was a rumor being circulated recently that said if you passed away as a result of getting the COVID-19 vaccine, your beneficiaries would be denied your death benefit.
Fact-checkers and official statements from Insurance Agencies rushed to deny such claims and if you were to base your perspective solely on what you can find on Google, you would have no real reason to be concerned.
In March, the American Council of Life Insurers responded to a social media post that said payouts were denied to beneficiaries when the insured received a vaccine.
“Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit,” said Paul Graham, the organization’s senior vice president, in a statement March 12.
Whether someone received COVID-19 vaccine is not a consideration for life insurers deciding whether to pay a claim, he said. (USA Today)
But here’s the problem…
In many ways, credibility has been mortgaged on several fronts where the COVID-19 virus is concerned. Whether it’s the CDC, the WHO or the White House, the mixed messages and forever changing standards have created a population that is not willing to accept something as being true just because the media insists that it is.
And they’re not wrong.
It’s not just the mask nor is it merely a matter of getting vaccinated. It’s the way certain treatments have been demonized, the manner in which some medical professionals are silenced and even in the way some have been killed.
Recently, President Biden stated that there was a plan being considered by the Federal Government to enlist “Trusted Messengers” to go door to door into the communities and encourage those who yet to be vaccinated to go ahead and get the vaccine.
That’s the problem.
There are no Trusted Messengers.
On one hand, you have physicians and virologists saying that COVID-19 is a real threat and justifies everything from masks to total economic shut downs.
On the other hand, you have medical professionals who insist that the disease can be treated successfully and to continue processing everything as a legitimate reason to isolate one’s self and destroy our collective ability to purchase food, pay our bills and fund further research is neither practical let alone accurate.
While the virus is real and people have died, statistically you’ve got a better chance of passing away in a car wreck than you do from COVID-19. But you don’t hear that perspective from the media. Instead, it’s a non-stop enumeration of death tolls and new cases as opposed to recovery rates and effective treatments.
In addition, there’s credible voices out there that will tell you that masks are not effective, social distancing is pointless and shutting down the economy is more about destroying Trump’s past accomplishments than it is about preventing the spread of the virus.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg…
- In February of 2020, Fauci recommended that you not wear a mask
Masks are really for infected people to prevent them from spreading infection to people who are not infected rather than protecting uninfected people from acquiring infection. The typical mask you buy in the drug store is not really effective in keeping out virus, which is small enough to pass through material. It might, however, provide some slight benefit in keep out gross droplets if someone coughs or sneezes on you,” Fauci wrote. “I do not recommend that you wear a mask, particularly since you are going to a very low risk location. Your instincts are correct, money is best spent on medical countermeasures such as diagnostics and vaccines. (gateway pundit)
- …in May of 2020, the New England Journal of Medicine stated that masks worn outside of health care facilities offers, “…little, if any, protection.”
- In July of 2020, the CDC said that you should wear a mask and then…
- In In January of 2021, Fauci advocated wearing two masks
The CDC is now stating that even vaccinated people should be wearing masks. This despite the fact that other experts will say that that wearing a mask has done very little as far as mitigating the virus in general.
- Bars were allowed to remain open while churches were shut down.
- Trump’s rallies were ordered to be canceled, yet BLM rioters were accommodated.
- The Washington Examiner published an article in March of 2021 saying that the World Health Organization has recommended not to use Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19. This, despite the fact that a study by the Henry Ford Heath System, showed Hydroxychloroquine to be capable of significantly cutting death rates among COVID-19 patients.
- Those physicians who are able to successfully treat their COVID-19 patients with tried and true medications are being demonized
- CNN’s Don Lemon recently suggested that anyone who doesn’t get the vaccine should be restricted from buying groceries
- However the vaccine is being promoted, the fact of the matter is an unvaccinated person doesn’t pose more of a risk than someone who is vaccinated. (see quote below)
Both Joe Biden and Kamela Harris previously stated that they would not get any vaccine until it had been approved by the FDA, yet now…
Both of them are now vehemently insisting that everyone should get a vaccine despite the fact that the vaccine is not yet approved.
It’s not a question of whether or not the virus is real. The question is how do you mitigate the risks in a way where the preventions don’t become more of a problem than the virus itself.
Here we go…
First of all, you can be denied a death benefit from a Life Insurance Company in certain circumstances. The best place to go to learn what those circumstances are is not an Insurance Company’s website. Instead, you want to go to the site of a legal firm and look at some of the cases they’ve had to adjudicate.
For example, Life Insurance Lawyer identifies several scenarios where a beneficiary was told they would not be receiving any benefits. While there is generally no problem, there are, nevertheless, situations where some Insurance companies will try to deny a benefit based on ambiguous clauses buried within the policy itself.
You see this potential in the “Critical Illness” clause of a Life Insurance policy.
Critical illness policies allow the policyholder to receive payments in case they are diagnosed with certain diseases or conditions such as a heart attack, kidney failure, organ transplant, stroke, or cancer. Most life insurance companies do not include COVID-19 as a covered condition under their critical illness policies. Unless your critical illness policy includes the newly discovered coronavirus, your critical illness claim will be denied.
So, while a person may think themselves to be covered, their surviving relatives may find that, depending on the way the policy is worded and the extent to which COVID-19 is covered, what they may be rightfully entitled to will be withheld in a way that sounds both legal and compelling.
And what makes it so toxic is that their scenario won’t be found on the internet nor acknowledged as a reasonable dispute because of the way the Insurance Carrier will categorize it as an irregularity that has nothing to do with the virus despite the fact that it was COVID-19 that caused the death of their policy holder.
When you’re dealing with a fearful person, you can convince them to make concessions they wouldn’t otherwise make. And they can be even more vulnerable if you can show them by not agreeing to your proposal, they’re hurting innocent people.
But the good news is that those kinds of campaigns become more and more obvious as the rule of law, the Hippocratic Oath and the Bill of Rights are overruled in the name of something “necessary.”
The only thing that’s necessary now is a fair hearing of those that risk their reputations and livelihoods to champion a sound, medicinal approach that doesn’t require a toxic dependency on government and a retooling of the human race.
In addition, those that recognize that there is a man behind the curtain need to push back and you’ll see more of the reason why in Part II.