Typically, when a company is about to go belly up, the employees of that company file disability insurance claims . . . most fraudulent.
My daughter works for Prudential in the underwriting department for disability insurance.
Recently I asked her what her biggest failure was. She responded quickly that it was Enron. Prudential provided disability insurance for Enron, and she underwrote it. Obviously, when they went belly up, there was a flood of disability claims and Prudential lost big bucks.
(I asked her if Pru could disallow the fraudulent claims, but I can’t remember the answer. I think it was something about it being next to impossible to prove they were fraudulent. In any case, whether or not they were able to disallow the fraudulent claims, Pru took a bath.)
Pru CAN raise prices on other accounts to make up for that loss, but that only goes so far because they have to remain competitive on prices. I’m sure a certain amount of losses are included in prices, just like any other business, but this Enron thing went wayyyyyy over that contingency.
Now I don’t know who holds the disability insurance for Twinkies (haven’t talked to my daughter since that happened), but I suspect whoever it is will take a bath.
My point is this: If you subscribe to the theory that BHO’s administration was responsible for the Twinkie meltdown (and I DO) . . . . however remote, via unions or otherwise . . . then there is a trickle down effect to the BHO irresponsibility. It’s not only the employees, it’s a lot of other economic activity.
We tend to think of negative impacts in terms of ONLY the employees of a company when something like this happens. We forget that there’s a lot more to it.
Thanks again, BHO . . . you moron!