My first source regarding what we understand as the modern insurance industry and sector starts in Italy. There was a period of time when there was a specific representation of Sephardic Jews in the maritime sector. I refer to them being Jewish because it is important to acknowledge that when Christopher Columbus came to the “New World” that aboard his ship were included sailors of Jewish and Moorish descent. Some of them were connected to communities attempting to escape the Inquisition, or that had a distinct legacy of maritime trade and travel much different from what is categorically ascribed in tellings and counter-tellings of “The Discovery of America.”
Shortly after Columbus’ voyage, others in Europe wanted to acquire some of the things found in the “New World” that had not been previously available. Among those items was tobacco. When Europeans were first exposed to tobacco, an interest in acquiring more and regularly came into being. Who would purchase it and distribute it was one matter, but so too was the paradigmatic experience entailed in trying to market it. Some tried to use the importation of tea from Asia as an example of a precedent but there was determined to be a specific risk with introducing tobacco concertedly into Europe. So, there were “insurance” agreements that were drawn up between the merchants and those to whom they were to distribute. The basic agreement said that the importer agreed to purchase a certain amount for a certain price, but that if the merchant did not provide it for whatever reason, then there was a cost that was due to the importer. The understanding was that if the merchant agreed to import and create a market, including a demand, and then the product was not delivered, then the effort would have been wasted and costly, and hence the risk of acquiring the acquisition, shipping and distribution incentives by the merchant were leveraged in consideration of the importer’s relationship to the product and its desirability in Europe.
So before we even get to Virginia, when it comes to tobacco, we have to look at what was going on in Spain.
I also learned that Dallas, Texas was actually the origin of the modern medical insurance industry. According to the source I had access to, the first form of medical insurance was started by a hospital in the city to support teachers who might have need of medical treatment. The understanding was that the hospital would offer a sort of “grant” to pay for the health needs of teachers with the understanding that the teachers would seek their health needs through that specific medical establishment. Early medical insurance was very much occupationally-based in this regard. The policy of having divergent or disparate types of patients was not a regular one at the onset. In the 1920s, Texas underwent a major evaluation of reformulation of its insurance sector; the details on this are still unfolding even almost 100 years later…
According to the information on the medical insurance sector I encountered a very significant change occurred during the late 1950s and late 1960s in terms of the way that medical insurance billed treatment that changed the aims and focus of medical practitioners. The specializations in billing and the incentives for practitioners to establish and demonstrate expertise began to increase billings for specific treatment outside of a context of prioritizing “medically necessary” treatments. Did this correlate with developments of peaceful “energy” paradigms that were likewise unfolding? I believe so. In fact, a major conference in Puerto Rico in the late 1950s was specifically focused on the relationship between law and the energy sector, but via a consideration of the potential use of nuclear energy in regards to medical treatment and technology development. This conference was actually supported by Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s brother, Milton, who along with members of the nascent American nuclear energy sector had publicly announced their support for a project to encourage peaceful nuclear energy development in the whole of the Americas during a visit to Panama several years before the actual summit in San Juan, Puerto Rico. In addition to other matters discussed at this conference were considerations of the future possibilities of “telemedication” in using nuclear energy developments in medical treatment and technology development.
Were these developments in insurance billings and provision connected to developments in medical technology and treatment considerations presented as part of nuclear energy developments? I believe so. I actually believe that it has ALWAYS been a primary consideration. In fact, I believe that a few different major socio-political paradigmatic changes have been connected to this, including Nixon’s visit to China following his announcement of wishing to increase the nuclear energy sector in the U.S. prior to the OPEC embargo. I ASLO believe it is directly connected to the current situation concerning the information regarding – or lack of information in regards to – the circumstances surrounding Puerto Rico’s “default” as well as efforts to acquire statehood and/or independence.
But that is not how we are supposed to see it…or is it?
Did someone order a specific nuclear product line? Did they take out Italian merchant-style insurance on it? Did that product line not prove to be as successful as they had promoted it to be, so now the “importers” want to bankrupt their companies, get the federal government to pick up the bill, and make the rest of us pay for their “insurance?”
Who were these “nuclear products” meant for?
No one disclosed to the financiers did they?
But…there is more than one type of “insurance” and it does NOT even have to go through the Central Intelligence Agency.
The best insurance is one that you don’t need to pay you. That IS much different than “charity” or getting “free healthcare.”
NO one should be entitled to “free” nuclear products and that is the whole problem before us right now.
Nuclear facilities and products are expensive for a reason. They cost and should be purchased at an appropriate cost. Those who make them should be able to be paid well for what they produce.
They are not a “luxury” and they are not “medicine” and they are not “indulgences.”
They ALSO should NOT be permitted to be “marketed” as a “catastrophe” or an “illness.”
And if there is a glut in the market because "the product" was dumped for lack of demand, you certainly should not call it a “pandemic.”
Co-conspiring to cover-up for what the State of Texas and its Board of Insurance Commissioners did in 2001 to create the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Program was one crime.
Co-conspiring to defraud the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Program to cover-up for what is occurring now is a second crime.
Against all of humanity.
Someone asked the Italians about this in the last five years…
Who covered their answer?
11:37 am CST
May 6, 2020
Finish edit by 11:49 am CST
Comments