Sympathy, but not money for disaster areas

[Ravi]

No... you don't abandon... but the cost of living goes up accordingly.. the cost of insurance goes up accordingly....

If I choose to live in a safer area for whatever reason... I should not be subsidizing someone else's decision to live in a more danger prone area... they should be paying for that choice

That's fine, but it will end up costing you more in the long run.

Oh, and the reason the federal flood program exists is explained on wikipedia...

Nationwide, only 20% of American homes at risk for floods are covered by flood insurance. Private insurers are unable to insure against the peril of flood due to the prevalence of adverse selection, which is the purchase of insurance by persons most affected by the specific peril of flood. In traditional insurance, insurers use the economic law of large numbers to charge a relatively small fee to large numbers of people in order to pay the claims of the small numbers of claimants who have suffered a loss. Unfortunately, in flood insurance, the numbers of claimants is larger than the available number of persons interested in protecting their property from the peril, which means that insurers are unable to cover their costs in flood insurance.
In certain flood-prone areas, the Federal Government requires flood insurance to secure mortgage loans backed by federal agencies such as the FHA and VA. However, the program has never worked as insurance, because of adverse selection. It has never priced people out of living in very risky areas by charging an appropriate premium, instead, too few places are included in the must-insure category, and premiums are artificially low." [1] The lack of flood insurance can be detrimental to many homeowners who may discover only after the damage has been done that their standard insurance policies do not cover flooding.
Flooding is defined by the National Flood Insurance Program as a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of two or more acres of normally dry land area or two or more properties (at least one of which is your property from: Overflow of inland waters, unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from ANY SOURCE, and mudflows. [2]
This can be brought on by landslides, a hurricane, earthquakes, or other natural disasters that influence flooding, but while a homeowner may, for example, have earthquake coverage, that coverage may not cover floods as a result of earthquakes.

 

[DiamondDave]

It will cost more in the long run to not have a red-tape government bureaucracy behind it? No... I do not go with that myth

And as stated.. the cost of living should go up for those who live in an area where repair costs would be more... it is right and logical

What next.. I personally SHOULD be subsidized because I wish to live in Hollywood or Brentwood, even though I can't afford it and I can fully live somewhere else within my means and where my chosen career has more of a job market?

As for your link... I appreciate the text on the explanation more, even if I don't agree still with the premise behind it.... I mean, c'mon.... "The lack of flood insurance can be detrimental to many homeowners".. well, living in hurricane alley or a flood zone by choice is the detrimental part... thinking that someone else should subsidize that choice is also ludicrous

 

[Ravi]

It will cost more in the long run to not have a red-tape government bureaucracy behind it? No... I do not go with that myth

And as stated.. the cost of living should go up for those who live in an area where repair costs would be more... it is right and logical

What next.. I personally SHOULD be subsidized because I wish to live in Hollywood or Brentwood, even though I can't afford it and I can fully live somewhere else within my means and where my chosen career has more of a job market?

As for your link... I appreciate the text on the explanation more, even if I don't agree still with the premise behind it.... I mean, c'mon.... "The lack of flood insurance can be detrimental to many homeowners".. well, living in hurricane alley or a flood zone by choice is the detrimental part... thinking that someone else should subsidize that choice is also ludicrous

So is living by a river. In fact, though I am required by law to have flood insurance, chances are that I will never have a flood that hurts my house but you, living by a river, probably will.

 

[editec]

I fully believe private insurers don't because of the national flood insurance that is subsidized... an insurance company for profit cannot really compete with that... take that away, and in a competition market, the insurance companies will come up with some sort of solution... it will not be as 'cheap', but really SHOULD it be?

Well you're just wrong.

the fact is that until nationalized flood insurance was avaialble, people couldn't find a private insurance company that would take the risk.

Why?

Because at the time few insurance companies were willing to rish going belly up if there was a flood.

And as we watch insurance companies abandoning policies in FLA because of hurricanes, we might very well see our government offering that kind of insurance, too.

Hey, I don't BLAME private companies for not wanting to take that sort of gigantic risk, either.

 

[Ame®icano]

Gustav is gone, but Hanna is coming.

 

[editec]

And after that one...another still, if the national weather service is correct.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I did some more research on the insurance aspect, the govenment mandated program due to the fact that the majority of those seeking insurance are in areas likely to flood and thus it makes it unattractive to insurers. I guess that does bolster the point of them not going there in the first place...

thanks for the info... I appreciate it.

bobby

I do not know how other states with various forms of mandatory insurance operate. However, in California, auto insurance is mandatory. Offenders have to have special programs. The state manages that and makes it fair through an "assigned risk" program, which says that any company doing insurance business will carry a proportional amount of these policies. Those who don't want to deal with it just stay out of the state. In a very large market, such as we have, doing business here seems to be worth it to the companies which operate here.

I would think that something could be worked out that is equitable. Rather than specific type, calling it "disaster insurance," and covering the act of god whatevers, spread over the entire market, would possibly handle the issue. All property owners are covered, rates based on square feet and acreage, and renters have the option of contents insurance. Even in areas where things really are unexpected, as, in NH, there are people who should have had tornado coverage! Go figure! Then I read the stats. New Hampshire Tornadoes Then there is the business about one of the more active earthquake areas of the US being on the Mississippi, near Memphis, TN! Center for Earthquake Research and Information

Floods and flood potential: Natural Hazards - Floods

Wildfire: Natural Hazards - Wildfires

Some disaster can hit anywhere at any time. WE can't all live where everyone is safe from everything.

 

[AllieBaba]

Since every part of the country is subject to disaster the best way to go is to require every property owner to pay a small premium to belong to a federal disaster insurance fund.

Many of the states are important to the economy of the country.

Take LA, for instance. What do you suppose would happen if we closed the Port of New Orleans? Or CA, what would happen if we stopped growing food there?

Alternatively, we could just continue funding FEMA.

why on earth would we stop growing food in Cali? Do they routinely suffer hurricanes, tornadoes, or anything other than earthquakes and the occasional hail storm?

It's stupid for the feds to subsidize a LARGE city that is wiped out routinely by the same force of nature...over and over and over and over. There has to be a cut-off point. Not entirely, just a ceiling.

Hell, I don't know where they get the insurance to cover rebuilding. I live in the middle of the desert and good luck getting a loan for ANYTHING if your property is even on a 100-year flood plain. 100 year! And we're talking minor little soakings....

 

[Ravi]

It's stupid for the feds to subsidize a LARGE city that is wiped out routinely by the same force of nature...over and over and over and over.

What city are you talking about? As far as I know, that has never happened.

 

[AllieBaba]

New Orleans. Don't they get federal $$ to rebuild and evacuate every time they have to do it?

 

[Ravi]

New Orleans. Don't they get federal $$ to rebuild and evacuate every time they have to do it?

I don't think so. They got federal aid for Katrina because the US government is responsible for the levees. Some people will probably get FEMA assistance this time around, though.

But claiming the city has been repeatedly wiped out is

 

[DiamondDave]

I don't think so. They got federal aid for Katrina because the US government is responsible for the levees. Some people will probably get FEMA assistance this time around, though.

But claiming the city has been repeatedly wiped out is

Just like you wouldn't blame the kid who kept poking the dog with a stick and throwing firecrackers at it, when the dog attacks him?

Or just like you don't blame the person who decided to keep sticking their finger in the electrical socket, for getting hurt continually?

The city, which is not a living entity, cannot be blamed.. Those who continually choose to live in an area that is under continual danger or continually gets wiped out do need to accept, though, that it is their choice and the have to live with that choice (and pony up when it does happen)...

 

[Ravi]

Just like you wouldn't blame the kid who kept poking the dog with a stick and throwing firecrackers at it, when the dog attacks him?

Untrue

Or just like you don't blame the person who decided to keep sticking their finger in the electrical socket, for getting hurt continually?

Untrue

The city, which is not a living entity, cannot be blamed.. Those who continually choose to live in an area that is under continual danger or continually gets wiped out do need to accept, though, that it is their choice and the have to live with that choice (and pony up when it does happen)...

And you should be thankful that they do. Tell me, what would happen if we shut down the Port of New Orleans? How would it affect the economy and your grocery and gas bill? And btw, continually wiped out...what are you smoking?

 

[DiamondDave]

Untrue

Untrue

And you should be thankful that they do. Tell me, what would happen if we shut down the Port of New Orleans? How would it affect the economy and your grocery and gas bill? And btw, continually wiped out...what are you smoking?

Hmmm.. yeah... other ports would not take that business....

But that is not what is being said... The port has every right to stay open... as long as they pay off their own rebuilds/repairs at their expense because they choose to remain there, accept the risk, and operate the business there because of the proximity.... it is not everyone else's responsibility to take the consequences of their choice to live or conduct business there

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think so. They got federal aid for Katrina because the US government is responsible for the levees. Some people will probably get FEMA assistance this time around, though.

But claiming the city has been repeatedly wiped out is

Ravi, New Orleans has been flooded with disastrous results so many times I don't think anyone has even kept track of the numbers.

You know why everyone there is buried in above-ground crypts, right? It's because they flood so often and the water table is so high it's the only way to keep the corpses from popping up all over the place.

 

[Ravi]

Hmmm.. yeah... other ports would not take that business....

Other ports aren't at the base of the Mississippi.

But that is not what is being said... The port has every right to stay open... as long as they pay off their own rebuilds/repairs at their expense because they choose to remain there, accept the risk, and operate the business there because of the proximity.... it is not everyone else's responsibility to take the consequences of their choice to live or conduct business there

Then give them more of the tax money they deserve from being one of the main ports in the country for oil and consumer goods instead of letting the Federal kitty have it.

I have a feeling you don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi, New Orleans has been flooded with disastrous results so many times I don't think anyone has even kept track of the numbers.

You know why everyone there is buried in above-ground crypts, right? It's because they flood so often and the water table is so high it's the only way to keep the corpses from popping up all over the place.

Name one time they had a disastrous flood before Katrina or since.

You are at least correct about the crypts...since the city is below sea level they have to bury people that way.

I'll wait for your information on previous disastrous flooding.

 

[DiamondDave]

Other ports aren't at the base of the Mississippi.

Then give them more of the tax money they deserve from being one of the main ports in the country for oil and consumer goods instead of letting the Federal kitty have it.

I have a feeling you don't know what you are talking about on this subject.

So a policy of favoritism over equality again? All to commonly heard from the Dem side... yet you complain about other companies getting breaks for whatever other reasons ... it's simple for me... equality and get the government out of the business of being a mommy, insurance company, or whatever and out of the business of inequality...

I do not support special treatment because you choose to live or conduct business in a an area, even though it continually receives more damage, gets hit by hurricanes, or whatever... if it costs you more to repair more often, then you'll have to raise your prices to deal with the money it takes to rebuild/repair... so guess what, it may then cost more to ship to New Orleans than to ship to Norfolk or wherever, and you'll have to weigh that against the time/distance savings, etc...

 

[AllieBaba]

Here are a few, and these are just the biggies. There have been so many minor floods and hurricanes that nobody even keeps track other than to say "prone to flooding" "many floods" etc:

1721: A hurricane blew most of the structures of New Orleans down.
1849: Worst flooding ever due to a levee breach upriver
1882: "Flooding"
1927: Great Mississippi Flood
1965: Hurricane Betsy (catastrophic flooding)
1978: Extensive flooding
1995: Louisiana Flood
2004: 600,000 people evacuated for Hurrican Ivan
2005: Katrina
2008: Gustav


Honest, were you just joking when you made the incredibly ignorant remark about not knowing New Orleans has a history of flooding?

 

[AllieBaba]

Please say you were joking. It isn't even open to discussion, EVERYONE knows they have a history of flooding. It's part and parcel of the history of the city!