Thursday, September 24, 2009

On the soap box

I walked into the kitchen to grab a bagel this morning. When I opened the fridge I sighed a bit looking at the pork butt and wishing it was Saturday already. I get a bit teary eyed just thinking about it, but I digress. There was nothing of major interest on the radio this morning. But things got more interesting when I read the newspaper. It was an article on insurance that had me laughing and shaking my head.

See, our "genius" (man I can't load enough sarcasm on that one) governor decided to force everyone to buy car insurance when he passed the budget. Now, Dems in Milwaukee are crying about it being unfair that residents of Milwaukee pay more for car insurance than say people in Eagle River. They want the rest of the state to subsidize the insurance rates of those living in the city. They think that the drivers in Eagle River, population 1443, should pay the same rate as drivers in Milwaukee, population 604,447. Let's say that a quarter of the population owns a car. So using the logic of the politicians, 150,000 people driving in Milwaukee is the same as 380 in Eagle River. They should all pay the same rates.

Now I haven't check the crime rates in Eagle River lately. I am willing to bet that not many cars are stolen up there. If I do a search for stolen cars on their local newspaper site, the Vilas County News-Review, I get nothing. If I search "crime" I get other stories but nothing about stolen cars or vandalism to cars. I find it interesting that editor of the paper has the same name as a pot smoking friend of mine from college but nothing indicating reasons why insurance rates should be higher for them.

I find it amusing that one of the politicians, Tim Carpenter (D-Milw) actually answers his own question.

"This makes no sense," Carpenter said in a statement. "I don't think good
drivers should have to pay extra because other parts of their ZIP code - which
could be miles away - may have higher crime rates or more irresponsible drivers.
My bill will make sure that auto insurance premiums will be based upon the
driver's record, the years of experience a driver has behind the wheel, and the
miles driven, not ZIP codes."

But Tim you showed why it makes sense. Higher rates of crime and more irresponsible drivers. You are insuring the car and yourself against the actions of other people. You yourself said they are going into a higher risk area. Why should an insurance company bear that risk? They didn't move the person.

To jack up the insurance rate of people in low risk areas to cover the costs of those in high risk areas is assinine. You cannot protect all of the people from themselves. It takes an insurance exec to point out the simplicity of the situation.

Andrew Franken, president of the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, said
"any time you change the playing field, there are going to be winners and

It is called life. There are winners and losers. Your attempt to take from those who choose to live in a lower risk area to reward those in higher risk areas is simply wrong. Listen to the people who work in the industry who know what they are doing. They aren't trying to screw everyone out of their last nickel to make a profit. They understand risk and how to distribute it evenly among those willing to take said risk on.

Now I can hear some people out there thinking that I should be in favor of this. That my insurance rates would go down because someone else is paying part of my tab. Nope. Right is right. Beside, I think it would have ripple effects. The people of Eagle River would demand that I pay a portion of the insurance on their boats and I don't even own one.

But the main effect is more government control. The government needs to back down and stop trying to nanny us.

Oh and another thing, the FDA outlawing "fruit flavored" cigarettes is another dumb ass move. Why does everything that tastes good, but is bad, have to be aimed at kids? You think that a cherry flavored cigarette is aimed only at kids and is a gateway to make them smokers for life. Please! You have no proof of that. It just sounds good.

Even worse, the FDA doesn't even define what a cigarette is. This means that cigarillos and even some cigars may be banned soon too. Swisher Sweets could become a thing of the past if the FDA has their way. My friend Barney likes to smoke all kinds of flavored cigarillos. You want to prevent an adult from buying these legal product all because a kid may want them. What happened to carding the underage child from buying them?

Again, too much government trying to tell us how to live.

No comments: