W: 8/14/03

Work Diary, 8/14/03

A preliminary joke:

A man, whose level of drunkenness was bordering on the absurd, stood up
to leave a bar and fell flat on his face.
"Maybe all I need is some fresh air," thought the man as he crawled
outside.
He tried to stand up again, but fell face first into the mud.
"Screw it," he thought, "I'll just crawl home."
The next morning, his wife found him asleep on the doorstep.
"You went out drinking last night, didn't you?" she asked.
"Uhm, yes," he said sheepishly, "How did you know?

"You left your wheelchair at the bar again."

Funny? Maybe. I laughed, anyway. I could credential myself here: "I
know lots of handicapped people!" (untrue); "I have relatives who've
found themselves in wheelchairs at one time or another, if not
permanently!" (true); "I'm a strong proponent of the American's with
Disabilities Act!" (true, but with reservations).

Somehow, though, credentialing always seems a copout. It reminds me of
those absurd discussions in Liberal Arts Class 101. There I'd sit,
innocently wishing for a beer, when some coked-up, Birkenstock-clad
millionaire's daughter would sidle up to me and whisper just loudly
enough for everyone to hear, "Omigod, I, like, totally understand the
plight of African Americans. My best friend in seventh grade, was,
like, black, you know? I can say black, by the way, she said it was
okay. Anyway, she had the hardest time just trying to fit in.
Eventually her parents put her in one of those progressive schools? The
kind where they let you do whatever you want? Last I heard, she was
doing hair in Five Points, which is, like, the worst part of town. And
she used to be so cute!"

But back to the handicapped. My office is currently dealing with a
client who has a handicapped daughter. The daughter is going off to
college, so our client is having his car modified for her use. As the
daughter is paralyzed from the waist down, the modifications include a
hand brake and a special gas lever. Presumably, the car is already an
automatic.

The modifications are taking longer than expected, so our client
presented a claim under his automobile insurance policy. There's been
no accident; the client simply wants a rental car. Unfortunately, his
rental coverage can only be triggered by an accident: hitting another
vehicle, theft, vandalism. Regular maintenance, getting new tires,
modifications for the handicapped, etc. don't count as an accident, and
subsequently our client's insurance policy won't cover a rental
car.

The client understands this. He knows the modifications on his car
don't constitute an accident; he admits that under his policy, the
circumstances wouldn't trigger rental coverage. Once the work is
completed on the car and his daughter takes it to college, he plans to
buy himself a new one. Yet, he insists we provide him with a rental car
in the interim. Why? Because as the parent of a handicapped child, he
believes he is "owed the extra consideration." Those are his own words.
By not paying for his rental car, we have been called "greedy,"
"grossly insensitive to the needs of the differently-abled," and
"ethically-challenged." Clearly, our client is accustomed to arguing
his case. He has already contacted the Insurance Commissioner.

Is our client suffering from an inflated case of entitlement, or does
he have a point? The liberal in me says, "Sure, give him what he
wants." The conservative says, "Insurance companies are not charity
organizations." And while no one in my office is ever going to accuse
me of being stingy with rental cars, isn't there a point where we have
to say enough? Contrary to popular belief, every dollar that most
insurance companies bring in from their clients is spent on accidents.
In fact, my company spends more than we take in (the profit comes from
investments, but rest assured, we make plenty off those).

On the other hand, public sentiment seems to be in our client's favor.
This is a concept I have yet to figure out: equal rights, equal access,
different rights, different access. I'm not cynical or even undivided
on the issue; it's just very complicated. Simply put, I really don't
know.

Or maybe I do, if that guilty feeling in the pit of my stomach means
anything. Here's a client who's raised a handicapped kid; he's given up
his car and paid for its modification so the kid can get around; he
needs a little financial help. Life is never fair - I know that. What I
can't decide is if the client is owed a little extra consideration,
perhaps with some empathy thrown in for good measure. And if I decide
the answer is "yes," does that mean I have to buy a pair of
Birkenstocks?