I am curious- why no criticism of the people in the Midwest who live in flood plains?

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I just want to know why God is punishing them. They haven't allowed any gay marriage yet.

Not enough of them voted for Romney in the primaries.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Define "get by." Does that mean a FEMA trailer and $500 on a debit card and the government is done? Are they going to cover the costs of rebuilding my home where it was? If not, why not? My kids need a roof over their heads. They need food in their bellies.

Your plan is starting to sound ominously inadequate and very risky.

"The government isn't going to restore you to the condition you were in prior to the storm. We will help you get by."

Can anyone imagine Bush saying that to the NO survivors? But in essence, isn't that what we have done, help them get by, but not full restoration?

Of course the government isn't restoring everyone to the position they were in pre-storm. That isn't what I am arguing for. We are talking about whether or not the government should have provide any assistance at all for people in areas damaged by catastrophic events. You appear to be arguing for no assistance at all. I am rejecting your position. If you want to accept that some government assistance is appropriate, we can move on to discussing what level of assistance is appropriate.

In general, the person who does plan ahead and can afford insurance will typically fare better than the person who doesn't and can't. That much should be clear. The question here involves what responsibility the government has to those who don't and/or can't.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You also aren't noting the fact that in a huge catastrophe, insurance companies often just go bankrupt or spend years fighting with you about whether or not they actually owe you the money under your policy. In Katrina, many people had flood insurance, but the wind tore up their home and the rain water came in, so the insurance companies said the flood policy didn't protect against wind and rain damage. It is a joke.

Uh, no...
Homeowner's insurance covers wind and rain damage. It doesn't cover flood damage (and this is fairly clearly spelled out in all homeowner's policies). The scam that people are trying to pull is that their damage was due to wind and rain (and hence covered) and not the ensuing floods from the levee breaking.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Uh, no...
Homeowner's insurance covers wind and rain damage. It doesn't cover flood damage (and this is fairly clearly spelled out in all homeowner's policies). The scam that people are trying to pull is that their damage was due to wind and rain (and hence covered) and not the ensuing floods from the levee breaking.

Uh, no. That is a separate scam that is simply the inverse of the scam I posted about.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

The question here involves what responsibility the government has to those who don't and/or can't.

I reject your assumption. If people can buy a house/condo/apartment, they certainly can afford insurance. They simply need to fold it into their housing budget, yet choose not to. They do the math: less insurance = more house, or less insurance = better car, or less insurance = more money for Obama's campaign. Then when it all comes crashing down, many wonder why their government isn't doing more.

I'm very much okay with The Government helping people out, along the lines you described (we'll help you get by in the short term, but you've go to take it from there) after all they could do. If they didn't insure and I did, why should I get charged doubly?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I reject your assumption. If people can buy a house/condo/apartment, they certainly can afford insurance. They simply need to fold it into their housing budget, yet choose not to. They do the math: less insurance = more house, or less insurance = better car, or less insurance = more money for Obama's campaign. Then when it all comes crashing down, many wonder why their government isn't doing more.

I'm very much okay with The Government helping people out, along the lines you described (we'll help you get by in the short term, but you've go to take it from there) after all they could do. If they didn't insure and I did, why should I get charged doubly?

I've said before that from experience doing collection work as a small part of my practice, people always have more money than they say they do. They get in trouble because they prioritize the wrong things. Just as an example, I can't even tell you how many times I have been out with the missionaries or home teaching and entered a trailer home with a much, much nicer TV than the one I have. This was even true for one where there was a basketball sized hole in the floor where the slab underneath was visible.

It is hard to draw a line, however, between people that appreciate the risk and decide to run it (like me not having health insurance through most of law school) and people who are just flat out dumb because it is a continuum. I promise you that the same dumb people who don't buy insurance have no concept that government does certain things but not other things. Now in a rural area like mine, these really unsophisticated folks for the most part figure that if the shit hits the fan they have to figure something out themselves. In urban areas, where people are much more acclimated to government services, they see government as a parent and wonder why everything isn't taken care of.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Uh, no. That is a separate scam that is simply the inverse of the scam I posted about.

Would you mind finding me a single example of a homeowner's policy that covers floods and not wind/rain? Or a single example of a person who was covered by flood insurance but not homeowner's insurance?

I'm sure your sources on this "reverse scam" could provide you this pretty easily.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Would you mind finding me a single example of a homeowner's policy that covers floods and not wind/rain? Or a single example of a person who was covered by flood insurance but not homeowner's insurance?

I'm sure your sources on this "reverse scam" could provide you this pretty easily.

I should probabyl read the thread more carefully before popping off, but hey, why bother?

Typically to get flood coverage yuou need HO coverage first. I suspect that somewhere somehow it can be done otherwsie, but I am not aware of it. (this is residential first party we are talking about, not commercial.)

People try to urge carriers to consider covered perils the cause of laoss all the time. I have many times heard people joke that their EQ insurance is the butane lighter they keep by the gas line.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by creekster

I should probabyl read the thread more carefully before popping off, but hey, why bother?

Typically to get flood coverage yuou need HO coverage first. I suspect that somewhere somehow it can be done otherwsie, but I am not aware of it. (this is residential first party we are talking about, not commercial.)

People try to urge carriers to consider covered perils the cause of laoss all the time. I have many times heard people joke that their EQ insurance is the butane lighter they keep by the gas line.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about since the problem of being covered by flood insurance and not homeowner's insurance was widespread among the Katrina victims.

Right, cali?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Would you mind finding me a single example of a homeowner's policy that covers floods and not wind/rain? Or a single example of a person who was covered by flood insurance but not homeowner's insurance?

I'm sure your sources on this "reverse scam" could provide you this pretty easily.

You want me to give you the name of a single person who has flood insurance and not homeowners insurance? Really?

And who said homeowners insurance covers floods?