Insurance = bailouts?

I'm sick of idiots who think that an insurance company's job is to bail you out of whatever problem you're in. It's bad enough when people think that's the government's job, but it's the idiots that think an insurance company is screwing them over because they didn't take out a policy to cover the loss they're claiming.

An article in Esquire discusses two individuals, husband and wife, who ran a nursing home in New Orleans. They chose not to evacuate when the mandatory evacuation order was given. An official from the government called them and offered them the use of two buses to evacuate their patients. The couple declined. They figured they knew better than the state officials who gave the mandatory evacuation order. The hurricane came, the two of them left the nursing home, and the residents were left to die - some of them physically restrained to their beds. The couple was charged (and convicted) of negligent homicide. Esquire wrote up a long article which was little more than a 'these were such great people' piece, never contradicting the facts at hand - that they chose to ignore the evacuation order and then left the residents to die while they saved themselves. When they got around to going back for them, after the storm had let up, everyone was already dead.

That's not the part that pisses me off at the moment (though it doubtlessly does). The nursing home owners' defense attorney (who, I might add, blames the deaths of the residents on the Army Corps of Engineers and every government official from Mayor Naggin to President Bush but feels that those who actually ran the nursing home aren't to blame in the slightest) started out the conversation with the reporter doing the piece with a long rant about how the government and every insurance company completely screwed over everyone who suffered losses. He's ticked that his insurance company isn't paying for the damage to his house. Later they visit his house - it was destroyed by the flood. Like the vast majority of people, he didn't buy flood insurance. However, despite the fact that he didn't buy flood insurance he expects his insurance company to pay for flood damage. That's like going out to a high-end restaurant, buying an appetizer, and then getting ticked that you didn't get the fillet and lobster tossed in for free. It's not the insurance company's place to pay for his fillet and lobster. If he can't afford to eat at the restaurant, he should go to a frickin' Big Boy instead. Why is that so hard to understand? Why do people think the insurance company or the government should pay for his fillet and lobster when so many of us have to eat at Big Boy?

Maybe I took that example a little too far...

Special Bonus: Granholm's plan for "improving" the economy

Governor Granholm released her tax plan yesterday. Basically, she's in favor of slashing taxes for the manufacturing industry and imposing taxes on service companies, particularly on financial service companies. Mainly, this is because people are worried about outsourcing and hate insurance companies and banks.

Here, I thought Granholm was trying to diversify the economy. If this is her intent, why would she be attacking the consulting and financial service companies which are growing at a great pace and are one of the few shining points in the economy? Sure, we need to do something to help manufacturing. However, is cutting their taxes by 1 percentage point (albeit, an 85% reduction) going to offset the harm to the economy by imposing a new tax on the service industries? Nearly all new jobs in this state are service industry jobs. Service industry jobs are things that Americans can do better and more cheaply than foreign competitors and thus are where we're strongest. Why make it tougher for these companies to succeed while trying to bolster a manufacturing sector in which we simply can't compete? We should be focusing on things we're doing well, not tearing them down. Only by focusing on what we do well can we hope to turn around Michigan's economy.

However, Democratic strategies are more concerned about making things 'even' then about sound economic policy. It's still amazing how these people think they're capable of running the economy.

Quote of the Day

From Slate's science roundup:

A new robot can recognize when it's injured and change its behavior to compensate. Animals do this all the time, but previous robots have shown little or no adaptability. This robot was designed to observe the consequences of its movements, infer how its limbs work, and adjust when the consequences change. Key test: When its creators shortened one of it's legs, it changed the way it walked. Sci-fi spin: It's an early model for explorer robots that must handle surprises on other planets without human aid. Nightmare scenario: 1) Adaptive, self-modifying robots will treat human interference as just another challenge to overcome. Scientists' rejoinder: "We just pull the plug out of the robot." Nightmare scenario 2: Your plug-pulling habit is just another challenge.

First accusation of voter fraud

The Democrats filed their first accusation of voter fraud this morning at 7:36 am. Why? A poll in Ann Arbor opened late this morning and they felt that this may have deprived individuals of their ability to vote. It opened at 7:06 am. One individual was in line and voted without incident.

I just love when people cast doubts on our political system in order to score political points. I'm surprised I haven't heard that Republicans in Detroit are intimidating voters by making sure that they're actually registered to vote. Yep, one of the complaints about the 2004 election was that a "young, white man" looked over the shoulder of an election worker to make sure that a voter's name was on the registered voter list. Clearly intimidating.