So for example; an umbrella policy is only for liability coverage that runs over and above the initial coverage
afforded by other policies.
Not exact matches
There he says, one, that the shift from the concept of «the State's role as providers of equal opportunities to every citizen» to that of providing education, health and
other social services «to those who can
afford to pay» is a U-turn in public
policy which «has been made surreptitiously
by administrative action without public discussion and legislative sanction»; two, that the total commercialization of social sectors is «alien even to free market societies»; and three, that «the ready acceptance of self - financing concept in social sectors alien even to free - market societies is the end result of gradual disenchantment with the Kerala Model of Development», which has been emphasizing the social dimension rather than the economic, but that it is quite false to present the situation as calling for a choice between social development and economic growth.
I'm sick and tired of suburban politicians citing «hurting the middle class» as their mantra against good
policy that actually helps the middle and working class — i.e. those who commute
by another
other means than driving in the Central Business District (and somehow
afford to park!)
These two factors make term life insurance considerably more affordable than permanent
policies; while term life is the best option for most people,
others may benefit from the versatility
afforded by the cash value component of permanent
policies.
One
other important thing to note is that in many cases, the protection
afforded to
policy holders
by their personal effects coverage is limited to cases of total theft loss - in
other words, situations when a vehicle is stolen and never recovered.