corporate grifters

People are increasingly recognizing the fact that insurance companies are no longer honest, legitimate companies, that they've slowly ruined whatever little bit of good reputation they had when they began resorting to all kinds of nefarious practices and excuses in order to prevent paying claims so as to increase their profits.

As a consequence, people are opting out of insurance (only the most gullible, socially brainwashed people, those who work for companies that provide it cheaply, or the rich still have it), figuring that the downside is not as bad as getting ripped off would be if and when the insurance company failed to pay off after a legitimate claim was filed.

Therefore, the government has to get involved (spurred on by lobbying, of course) and start mandating that insurance policies be purchased. First, a long time ago, it was house insurance (which, to be fair, banks, not the government, mandated; for good reason); then it was car insurance; and next it's health insurance.

Why do you think that companies increasingly fail to provide insurance to their employees? They recognize it has become a scam business and they don't really want to continue to participate; or, if they feel that their employees will not like it, they require that their employees pay a part of the premium, which has been increasing over time.

Employees, in order to maintain their insurance, must now buy into the scam; and when they do, human psychology dictates that they adopt a belief consistent with their behavior: They're paying for it, therefore they must believe that it's worthwhile. It's classic con game psychology. Once they've got you hooked, you maintain the hold.

Support Corporate Dismantlement

.

bad company

Last night, Geraldo defended a NY top cop (didn't catch his name), stating that he was a friend and a "good man". The guy was accused and recently convicted of having his home remodeled for less than the going rate, which constituted corruption (bribery?, since the work was done by Mafia-types?) in the eyes of what Geraldo considered to be an overzealous judge.

The "news" piece started with the cop's wife complaining about how her family life has been upset and they have suffered a great deal as a result, as if that had anything to do with anything. "Real" criminals' family lives are equally upset by arrests and convictions. Too bad. It goes with the territory.

Next came Geraldo's defense. His primary points were that other dignitaries (he named one or two of them; again, I didn't catch the names) got much lighter sentences for the same crime and that the prosecutors and especially the judge were overly strict.

Listen, Geraldo. It's right for the judge to be strict, since this is a cop who's supposed to be protecting the public from this kind of nefarious activity. If you want to argue the point, argue the case for the others having gotten off with a wrist slap for being the corrupt assholes they were. You do the crime, you do the time.

And the guy being your friend and a "good man" is irrelevant. Besides, truly good men don't do corruption. If you had argued that he was innocent, that would be a different matter; but, since you didn't, I'm assuming that even you thought he did it. He got what he deserved. And one day so will you. Meanwhile, watch out for those chairs.

.