Letters 3/8/07

March 7, 2007

When insurance fails
Thanks so much for writing about issues that matter to citizens and of which they might never be aware unless they went through the nightmare of an insurance claims process due to severe injury or death of a family member (re: “Extreme Court“ series).
I have worked for many years as an advocate for the injured and disabled as well as families who have lost loved ones in civil wrongful death scenarios. This has always been a challenging environment for our teams that are committed to this work, but there has been such a dramatic shift over
the last 10 years in favor of profits over people, that the anguish and suffering of individuals and families are more incredible than ever before.
For example: Imagine, if you will, being a single parent of toddlers and suddenly being injured in an accident, then having the responsible insurance carrier “just say no” to your benefits application; you begin fighting your way through the legal system while trying to recover, only to be threatened by the local agencies to have your children removed from your home because you cannot care for them properly due to your injuries!
Such a situation and many other types of personal pain, financial disaster, and family pain are quite common due to callous denial of benefits. Today’s denial and “stalling” practices serve to compound damage upon an already suffering individual and family – and all because it has somehow become acceptable to “Just Say No” to paying benefits
that a policy holder has paid premiums for in good faith.
Interestingly, executive and defense attorney compensations have shot through the roof -- along with monthly premiums for coverage. Meanwhile, the modest $20/day replacement services benefit (which is to pay for such things as babysitters, housekeeping, snowplowing, lawn mowing, shopping, etc., while one is recovering from an auto accident) has stayed at the same daily rate for decades. And family members who are called upon to provide sophisticated therapies and care for their severely injured loved ones at home are stone-walled into accepting measly sums for performing professional-level work, and often lose their own jobs while they are caregiving – many face losing their homes while the legal process inches along only to provide a less than meaningful resolution, if any at all.
All of this is not to say that every carrier is totally heartless, and those carriers who pay claims fairly and timely are to be loudly applauded; however, far too many have not only become soulless but are enjoying a sense of personal ownership of the funds that we all pay to provide our families with some protection in the event of personal calamity. I do not understand the world we live in today at times and can only pray that this current extreme culture that glorifies profits at the expense of the health and welfare of innocent families and children finally comes to an end.
Anne, please keep writing on these and related topics!

Sharon Neumann • paralegal

Party on...
For many years now the news media have twisted and slanted their coverage of me and or my Jobbienooner website, mostly to the negative. It used to hurt me and cause me grief; I’ve learned to accept it and feed vicariously from it’s bountiful trough.
However, in this case, after reading your article (“A Lake of Trouble“), you don’t appear to be slanting or twisting.
Most often polarised opponents can’t/won’t/don’t ever look to “see“ any side other than their own. Hence most conflicts never resolve, but rather, produce endless futile battles until one conquers the other. Usually a lot of people get hurt.
From the outside looking in, if the riparians want only to “win“ on Torch Lake, they are going to lose. If they want something better than a loss, then that can only equal a “win-win.“
I sympathize with the lakefront homeowners’ wish for “their” (unfortunately for them, public) lake to not become a toilet.
Close it for ecoli, it closes for the riparians too. There‘s no simple answer, but quit thinking of new laws and think effective enforcement of existing ones.

Pete Arsenault
jobbienooner.com

Idle anthropology
How fortunate that Dave Looman pulled his car over to write a letter to the Express slamming Gary Klinga. It must have been unsafe for him to drive and think at the same time.
I only infer this from the letter he wrote (“Idle Observations,” 3/1), “debunking” Klinga’s assertion that collective car idling partially contributing to global warming, and that it’s benefit for an engine is marginal at best, (“American Idle” 2/22).
Dave, you chose this particular issue to wade into the proverbial slag-fest that is the Express’ letters page? Seriously, why not the Whiting Hotel thing? That was big. Or, stem cell research, or gay marriage? Why car idling?
I supposed from this you must be a car nut. Hmmm... quick Google search of “looman alden” — Bingo! — Alden Classic Car Show chairman. A little WTCM AM 5.80 talk radio playing in the background, perhaps? You’d better turn it down so you can read this and think at the same time, pal.
First, the people you’re exampling that aren’t scraping their windows in the morning are dumb for not scraping their windows, not because they didn’t let their car idle.
Then you concede the point that excessive idling is bad for an engine — but only in certain vehicles. Your metaphor about warming up race cars and stretching before a jog is a logically fallacious argument that bears no relationship to Kilnga’s larger point about useless emissions contributing to global warming.
Here, I’ll even offer you an equally stupid metaphor contrasting yours: cars only overheat when allowed by a human being — they don’t start themselves... Since we’re comparing cars to the Earth, I’ll let you make the next inferential leap.
Why am I writing this? Because your opinions exemplify an issue I think more pressing than arguing about idling cars and angry white men: the necessity to get this global warming thing out of the realm of political debate and start planning for an adapting environment. Your types simply derail this process as you spout tired anti-global warming rhetoric about Gore and jet fuel that comes straight from the White House, brought to you via Sean Hannity. Gore got the science right, despite what you’re being told. That’s WHY you’re being told about jet fuel instead.
Normally I stay out of these Express back-and-forths, but Klinga was proffering a solution of sorts that negatively affects nobody but the folks who would try it, and you had to run him down. For shame. Go wrench something off your Hemi Cuda and leave the deep thinking to others.

Ted Grayson – via email