But the capital provided by the owners is what is used to backstop the insurance and ensure the pot always exists. The amount of capital needed is calculated by the actuaries but supplied by the owners.
This is why I’m confused why you listed both an interest on capital and an actuarial adjustment.
Yes, you need to hold enough money to cover more/larger claims than expected, but doesn’t the return on capital cover that part?
Aren’t the risk and the actuarial adjustment the same thing?
From the buyers point of view I agree it is risk reduction. But it is gambling from the sellers point of view.
From the buyers point of view it reduces risk, so it is not gambling for them.
However it is gambling from the point of view of the underwriters.
(I am assuming both sides play fair and pay out when they should)
Insurance is gambling. You pay more in premiums than you get back in repayments after crashing. The house always wins.
Yet without Insurance business doesn’t function. Loss of expensive cargo or equipment wipes out the company.
Ok, let’s try this differently.
In your opinion, why are the allies of the US turning away, and why is this permanent (i.e. more than just Trump)?
City of lost children
Alphaville
I’m explaining that the US allies are turning their backs because checks and balances are failing, providing examples of those failures as requested.
You are arguing about the difference between the 4th and 14th amendment.
The lurking jury can decide who is the bad faith sealion.
Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points
Ctrl + f “abortion”. Not there
Ctrl + f “computer”. Not there
Argument falsified.
we can confidently say that check has not failed.
Judge Clarence is still sitting. The check has not succeeded. Therfore the check has failed.
I’m sorry, I can’t make this simpler for you to understand.
The fourteenth amendment just acts as a bridge to the fourth for the states
Your argument is that the word abortion doesn’t explicitly appear. Computers are not mentioned in either the 4th or 14th amendment.
He can still be impeached
And until he has been we can confidently state that this check has failed.
It says nothing about abortion.
It says nothing about personal computers but privacy still applies.
It hasn’t. He’s still open to impeachment.
He is still a judge. Check has failed.
Like what? Which checks are those specifically?
Let’s take a look at Justice Clarence Thomas. Conservative billionaires have treated Thomas to “at least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.”
He should be impeached, but that check has failed.
The existence of faults is an assumption of inevitability, not a promise that they can’t and won’t exist.
You have an inability to accept that some checks have already failed
It protects an individual’s right to privacy, it doesn’t say anything about abortion
Judges who were not under the pay of Conservative billionaires disagree with you.
The system does not rely on or promise in the absolute certainty that every Supreme Court justice can be ensured to be impartial
But there are supposed to be checks to ensure impartiality. These have obviously failed.
The fact that there exists a second layer of checks doesn’t mean the first can be ignored
Abortion access has never at any time been an explicit right in the United States constitution.
The U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects an individual’s right to privacy, which includes the right to decide whether to have an abortion.
What you’re doing isn’t reasoning
Pure projection.
The Supreme Court is a panel for a reason, the check succeeded.
The checks that are supposed to prevent compromised judges from sitting in the Supreme Court have failed. This we have agreed.
The Supreme Court is a panel for a reason.
The panel voted 6-3 to reverse a federal constitutional right. The panel check failed.
It’s getting harder and harder to keep track of the mental gymnastics
If my simple reasoning is getting to much for you then maybe you should take a break.
So, are hand puppets a middle ground?
Our previous conversation confirms that
You have admitted several Supreme Court judges are compromised. I.e. several checks have already failed. Reversal of roe v wade and loss of human rights is solid evidence against your protestations.
With every defense agreement, trade agreement, and willful choice to put all your eggs in Americas basket, you handed over that power.
I think recent actions of Spain are good counter examples of this not being true.
Even in the recent Greenland deal “Non-NATO members are barred from having an ongoing military presence in Greenland” shows the declining relationship between US and it’s “allies”. The terms bind the US into Nato, giving power to Denmark and demonstrate distrust of the US long past the Trump era.
How about not handing over that power to the US at all?
The US outspending the collective military budget of many of it’s closest allies is not something they have control over. No power is handed over to the US.
None of them have been
Many have been. Refer to our previous conversation for the example.
Is latency at audiojack levels?