Socialism and Insurance Companies

[Gravitymaster 0]

In light of all the $billions we are looking at spending for hurricaine relief, I'm starting to wonder again if the Govt. should be involved in providing assistance to people who move into an area of the country that has a history of natural disasters. Why is the govt. spending our tax dollars to pay for damage to peoples homes? Why don't their Insurance Companies pay for it?

Have we really become this much of a socialistic country? Isn't this socialism in it's most threadbare form?

I felt the sme way when I saw people getting huge amounts of money from the Federal Govt. after 9/11. Why do they get a Govt. check just because a loved one died in a disaster? The families of the troops in Iraq don't get a huge payout when a loved on is killed. Is their death any less tragic? Is their families suffering any less painful?

Why is it, that when it's just one person suffering a financial loss after a flood, fire etc. the onus for payment is on their Insurance company, but the Insurance Company is relieved of their responsibility when it's a large number of people suffering a loss? Why should the govt. pay to rebuild the home of someone who built on the beach, when that home is washed away by a hurricaine? All that person is going to do is rebuild in the same spot and when the home is washed away again, the govt. pays again. My guess is that if the insurance company had to pay in this case, the insurance premium would be so high that nobody could afford a home on the beach. So why are we subsidizing it?

So in light of our ever-looming deficit, it this what we should be spending our tax $$$ on? What would happen if insurance rates were set to account for these kinds of disasters? Would it destroy the economy in these areas?

[wmw999 2,589]

I think FEMA is used way too much as an unpaid insurance company.

On the one hand, if you need a job and one is offered in a hurricane area, you would move there. And, if you're in a job that doesn't pay that well, you might not be able to afford adequate insurance.

But dang -- the government's job is NOT to protect us from all harm. It's to give us a good soil to protect ourselves whenever possible, and, yes, help out those who cannot or do not avoid the absolute bottom (e.g. starving to death).

We should be better, as a country, than to say something like "sucks to be you" to kids starving because their parents are stupid. Or even to the parents.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I think FEMA is used way too much as an unpaid insurance company.

On the one hand, if you need a job and one is offered in a hurricane area, you would move there. And, if you're in a job that doesn't pay that well, you might not be able to afford adequate insurance.

But dang -- the government's job is NOT to protect us from all harm. It's to give us a good soil to protect ourselves whenever possible, and, yes, help out those who cannot or do not avoid the absolute bottom (e.g. starving to death).

We should be better, as a country, than to say something like "sucks to be you" to kids starving because their parents are stupid. Or even to the parents.

Wendy W.

And damn the cost, while we spend ourselves into bankruptcy? If people couldn't afford a home in an ara because it was disaster prone, the business would have to relocate elsewhere or pay higher wages so employees could afford the higher insurance rates.

Isn't continuing to susidize insurance companies just another form of corporate welfare?

[wmw999 2,589]

GM, I'm agreeing with you largely. Lower those guns.

I think we depend on the government to rescue us when we don't plan well. That's what FEMA's job appears to mainly be according to the man on the street ("they'll help me with what my insurance doesn't cover" or "I can't get insurance so I'll just use FEMA").

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

GM, I'm agreeing with you largely. Lower those guns.

I think we depend on the government to rescue us when we don't plan well. That's what FEMA's job appears to mainly be according to the man on the street ("they'll help me with what my insurance doesn't cover" or "I can't get insurance so I'll just use FEMA").

Wendy W.

So is this just indicative of the entitlement prone society we have become? Is an American citizen just entitled to a check whenever something bad happens to them? If the govt. won't pay for it, we go get a lawyer? Can't anything bad happen just because sometimes bad things happen? Does money have to automatically change hands when someting bad occurs?

[Channman 2]

I have to admit you got a good thread going here. The Reliant Stadium in Houston is another example. A Billionaire uses tax payers to build a stadium that makes him millions, however Walmart, Kroger, or Joe Blow down the street can't get a plum nickle of tax payer assistance to expand or build so they to can make millions.

As Theodore Roosevelt once said, "If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."

[jdhill 0]

What I find funny (not really) is that the insurance companies are looking to the government too... Just this morning, I heard a guy from AIG (one of the largest, if not he largest insurance companies) saying that this storm was going to stress the industry, and that if there was another disaster (say a major quake in CA) it could crush them...

Sounds like more Enron accounting...

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I have to admit you got a good thread going here. The Reliant Stadium in Houston is another example. A Billionaire uses tax payers to build a stadium that makes him millions, however Walmart, Kroger, or Joe Blow down the street can't get a plum nickle of tax payer assistance to expand or build so they to can make millions.

Although I disagree with using taxpayer money to build sports stadiums, at least I can see some benefit. Not arguing if the benefit is justified, just that it's preceivable.

But what are the benefits of spending 100's of billions of $$$$ everytime a hurricaines hit Florida or somewhare else? Does anyone know how much has been spent in the last 30 years on floods, hurricaines, tornados, fires etc?

If we are going to accept the Govt. using our tax dollars in this way, shouldn't we just stop the pretense and allow the govt. to be our homeowner insurance company? More socialism, is this where we are heading? Is this where we want to go?

[kallend 2,150]

Curiously enough, I agree 100% with you and Channman

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Curiously enough, I agree 100% with you and Channman

I just saw the devil commanding a dogsled team.

[PhreeZone 20]

I agree about the overusage of FEMA as a bailout agency. Thats not really its purpose anjd its just wrong for people to use it like that.

Funny thing is that if you wanted to move people out of diaster prone areas you need to abandon Southern California. The entire Gulf of Mexico. All of Flordia. All of the Atlantic seaboard from Georgia to at least Maryland needs to be left alone too. Move all the cities back from the Mississippi, Ohio, Colorado and Arkansaw rivers too. Cities like Buffalo and Fargo get FEMA $'s every year for blizzards so we might want to close them down also.

If that plan was to kick in I think Iowa would become a very populated state

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If that plan was to kick in I think Iowa would become a very populated state

Are they outside of Tornado Alley?

[billvon 3,119]

>I'm starting to wonder again if the Govt. should be involved in
> providing assistance to people who move into an area of the
>country that has a history of natural disasters.

I agree. IMO, the government _does_ have a role in providing emergency assistance to people in disasters, along the lines of rescue, emergency water distribution and repairs, security etc. But that aid should not extend to rebuilding their homes.

Out on Long Island, people like building beach houses on barrier beaches. Barrier beaches move naturally, and every time a new inlet opens or an old one closes, the government gets involved and dredges out the old inlet or builds up an eroding beach. They've spend millions protecting homes that are built on a naturally unstable beach. I don't think that's a valid use of taxpayer money.

[Channman 2]

>If that plan was to kick in I think Iowa would become a very populated state

Iowa, "There goes the neighborhood."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I agree about the overusage of FEMA as a bailout agency. Thats not really its purpose anjd its just wrong for people to use it like that.

Funny thing is that if you wanted to move people out of diaster prone areas you need to abandon Southern California. The entire Gulf of Mexico. All of Flordia. All of the Atlantic seaboard from Georgia to at least Maryland needs to be left alone too. Move all the cities back from the Mississippi, Ohio, Colorado and Arkansaw rivers too. Cities like Buffalo and Fargo get FEMA $'s every year for blizzards so we might want to close them down also.

If that plan was to kick in I think Iowa would become a very populated state

I'm not suggesting the Govt. move anybody anywhere. In fact my argument is the govt. should be less involved. If people want to live in areas that are high risk, thats fine. I just want them to assume total financial responsibility for their choice.

Imagine how much of the billions of $$$ we spend on disaster every year could be used to pay down the deficit.

Why is it that whenever tax payers demand lower taxes the question is always "what services do you want cut"? I think this is a huge expenditure we could do without.

[PhreeZone 20]

Well, if we are including tornado alley I think most the US is covered by some diaster then. Earthquake Fault lines run under Ohio Kentucky and Indiana just incase you want to exclude the tornados.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[lawrocket 3]

I have thought that this is a problem for a long time. I remember back in October to November of 1993, Los Angeles was basically surrounding by a ring of fire. Malibu was burning and ultimately consumed a couple of dozen homes. Laguna Beach then was stuck in a holocaust that consumed over 350 homes (most of which were valued at over 1 million dollars). By early November, Topanga Canyon was torched. Multimillion dollar estates in Carbon and Los Flores Canyons were destroyed.

Of course, many of these multimillion dollar estates were built on the ashes of homes destroyed as recently as 1970 in fires.

Malibu struggles with competing disasters several times per decade. Winter and Spring landslides destroy plenty of homes that survive the late Autumn fires. It happens quite regularly. Then people rebuild.

Of course, following those 1993 fires in Malibu, there was a tremendous outpouring of sympathy over ruined lives from people. The government, not satisfied with sympathy, declared Malibu a disaster area. James Lee Witt, FEMA director, promised "all the aid they need to rebuild homes and lives."

Why the hell shoudl the government be involved in the process of providing aid to a situation like Malibu? Malibu either burns, slides or gets flooded every two or three years. Furthermore, the government providing aid to millionaires to rebuild their multi-million dollar estates sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

Should the government help provide infrastructure and support? Absolutely. When people are displaced by disasters, the government should be there as a matter of public health. But giving or loaning money to the elites to rebuld a house that's gonna burn, slide or be flooded out pretty soon, anyway, is not exactly the best use of these dollars.

As an aside, we can note that when a tenement burns down and kills the poor or immigrants, FEMA does not respond. Theyd' rather focus on making sure Barbra Streisand has the scratch to rebuild her home and sue environmentalists who take pictures.

The government should not be responsible to insure individual losses. Rather, the government should provide the necessary support to keep them alive while the victims figure out themselves what to do next.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[bodypilot90 0]

i agree to a point, but how about taking the billions of aid to other places and spend it here. Start with the un's cut.

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

This is an issue that is an infuriating one for me as well.

I pay almost as much each month in insurance a month as my mortgage. Is it high, yes. BUT I am the one who decided it was worth it, for now anyway. The bank requires insurance on its investment, since most of the cost is in the buildings on the property and not the land it is on. Aside from that, I spent most of what I had saved to put into this place....hence no cushion to fall back on...if a tornado takes out the place, the only thing I will have other than a LOT of dirt is the amount I insured the place for(minus that pesky deductible). If I had enough in the bank to start over would I have it insured for this much - HELL NO.

Dont worry there is a point coming...

The probability of me getting a tornado-slim, flood-not possible unless there is a 100 foot wall of water (up on a BIG hill), fire-possible from lightening or the like. Chances are high the insurance company will never have to give me a dime of the money I have paid them, but I am ok with that for now. I would expect that if hurricane, tornado, or flood was more likely, my premium would be much higher and that if I chose to build a home in a place such as a barrier island I could not be insured.

It is all in calculated risk...if I am not ok with knowing my house I built on a barrier island could be swallowed up and gone then I do not need to put my life savings into it..and I most certainly do not need to expect that the government will pay for it for me. If the insurance companies are going to be devastated....well...they did not calculate their risk real well did they? It can not be too much of a surprise the coastal areas would be affected by hurricanes. They seem to have NO problem calculating the risk on car insurance should you get a ticket or two...or get in an accident..they figure out REAL quick their risk in insuring you!


For things that are unforeseen or really unlikely...take the earthquake in western north carolina here a week ago...then I can seen where the insurance companies might need help, who could really see that coming? I think those are the instances where FEMA could (not should) get involved.

Just my humble two cents.

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...