"Fairness" Boston Globe Style
On the surface, it might seem unfair that roughly three-quarters of the state's drivers pay about $100 more each year for auto insurance so that mostly urban drivers, who live in areas with more accidents and theft, as well as young drivers, can pay about $400 less.
"On the surface"???
It "might seem unfair"???
Memo to the editors of the Boston Globe: Put down the crackpipes, keep your hands where I can see 'em, and slowly step away from your keyboards.
But, wait, it gets better.
Quote of the Week honors, hands down, go to the one person in Massachusetts state government LEAST-qualified to offer any commentary on economic policy:
But Senator Dianne Wilkerson of Boston calls [Representative Ronald Mariano's] bill "the most disastrous economic policy that I've seen in my time in the Senate."
You haven't been spending a whole lot of time in front of mirrors these days, eh, Dianne?
Clashes are underway between domestic insurance companies [read: Beacon Hill sugardaddies], like Commerce, that defend the current system of flattening [read: subsidizing - ed] rates for drivers in low-income neighborhoods [but, of course, it's "for the poor" - ed.] and big-name insurers, like Geico, which eschew the state, in part, because the rules here don't allow them to reject clients [read: charge crappy drivers more - ed.] or use company-controlled criteria [read: risk analysis - ed.] to set premiums.
Obligatory follow-up question:
Where is the Globe's editorial calling for state-regulated rates for life insurance coverage? As I've said before, it's simply not FAIR that grossly overweight chain smokers have to pay more for life insurance than us healthy folks. How dare these evil insurance companies be allowed to operate in the Commonwealth when they so openly discriminate against people with unhealthy lifestyles.
Where's the FAIRNESS?
Perhaps concerned citizens Anthony and Christina could help me out here.