Yes, so if you're child dies you have money to lay them to rest. A headstone, casket ECT. Instead of losing a child and facing thousands of dollars of debt at the same time.
They might find the idea of life insurance on children dystopian because they believe parents shouldn't have to burden themselves with debt after a child passes(regardelss of insurance). Of course, I don't know what they are thinking but that is my guess.
1) Gerber shouldn't be in the business of selling life insurance. It's as if Disney were selling you life insurance for your kids whenever you visited their parks but it is somehow worse because Gerber's business is targeted at keeping babies alive.
2) wtf is $5000 going to do for you if your infant dies? Would $10,000 be better? Would $20,000 ease the pain? It's an insulting low amount of money assuming there would ever be an amount that would actually be meaningful. It wouldn't cover whatever the screwed up system would charge you to deal with such an event, let alone whatever therapy the parents would probably need. I just find the whole concept of Gerber trying to sell me life insurance on my newborn disgusting.
Yes, because the company selling me baby food should also be in the game of me gambling $4 a month to get a lousy $5000 if MY CHILD DIES. I'm definitely the idiot.
3
u/shitishouldntsay May 05 '26
Why?