A Political Tornado Thread

[lawrocket 3]

Gravitymaster

Never understood why the Feds are involved in the insurance business anyway. Mostly seems as a way for fat cats to build a home on the beach that no private insurance company would touch.

You've pretty much nailed it. Federal programs provide insurance at below-market rates. Flood insurance is a federal program because nobody could get insurance at a low rate. So taxpayers help cover the cost.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Mostly seems as a way for fat cats to build a home on the beach that no private insurance company would touch.

Like all those fat cats in the 9th ward of New Orleans?

- Dan G

[rehmwa 2]

lawrocket

Federal programs provide insurance at below-market rates.

I know you meant this, but I'm feeling explicit today

rephrase - Federal programs force taxpayers to involuntarily supplement the cost of poor decisions by purchasers that would be incentified to make smarter choices if the subsidies weren't there.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

rehmwa

the real issue is that taking money from State A and giving it to State B (after taking a cut) and then next year taking it from State B and giving it to State A (after taking a cut) is goofy.

the shell game should be eliminated, the states can take their own money for their own people and everyone ends up ahead - except for those that skimmed off it in the first place

It's not goofy at all. It's the basic insurance model. Losses are pooled and risk is significantly reduced, without any significant increase in cost. It's no different from your insurance premiums being used to pay the benefit for other insurance customers when they experience a covered loss, and their premiums being used to pay your benefit when you experience a loss.

If the individual states self-insured, they would have to maintain MUCH larger cash reserves, which, in all likelihood, would translate to higher taxes (with no economic benefit from those taxes, since the additional revenues would have to be stockpiled instead of pumped back into the economy).

It's not a shell game; it's basic risk management.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rhaig 0]

DanG

And if State A doesn't have the money, then their people just get screwed?

They're screwed until volunteers show up to help (SAR, medical treatment, communications, nutrition, hydration, rebuilding). That happens a lot, you just don't hear about it because it doesn't make good news. They typically do so with donated supplies and food. That much usually starts before any fed aid.

Quote

You're essentially saying that the Federal government has no business in disaster relief, am I correct?

I don't think it should be relied on or expected. The benefits are certainly lopsided from a state point of view.

--
Rob

[kallend 2,150]

rushmc

***www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4484462;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

As stated
Just a sick attempt on your post to relate that thread to the devestation in OK
Not surprising

Seems YOUR party are the political hacks related to this

YOU started the political thread. YOU, not me.

Get over yourself.

...

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

[champu 1]

rushmc

***I really think it would help if people would stop posting threads that use a web article to pin a viewpoint on "the other side" of posters here. The umbrella thread was another example in the other direction.

"Here, look at this garbage you believe. What a pack of morons..."

Now we know what you think
Thanks

Indeed... when I write, "I really think..." you are free to assume that what follows is what I really think and nothing more. I do try to differentiate between when I am intending to speak authoritatively and when I'm sharing my opinion.

rushmc

Ok
First I apologize for my snarky reply

Second
This thread was created to give a place so the policitcal crap was taken out of the other thread
The orginal posts were placed to show that (as you pointed out) there are multiple sides to this.

But there were some claiming the high road
The replies here have shown that road is, at best, level with the other side

No worries on the quip.

My comment wasn't soley directed at you and was intended to be in the context of the recent useful debate or just lots and lots of yelling thread. I used the word "people" instead of "you" and included another example to try and garner some "speakers corner impartiality cred." My point is simply to not worry so much about making sure that "political crap" has a place.

[livendive 8]

jcd11235

***the real issue is that taking money from State A and giving it to State B (after taking a cut) and then next year taking it from State B and giving it to State A (after taking a cut) is goofy.

the shell game should be eliminated, the states can take their own money for their own people and everyone ends up ahead - except for those that skimmed off it in the first place

It's not goofy at all. It's the basic insurance model. Losses are pooled and risk is significantly reduced, without any significant increase in cost. It's no different from your insurance premiums being used to pay the benefit for other insurance customers when they experience a covered loss, and their premiums being used to pay your benefit when you experience a loss.

If the individual states self-insured, they would have to maintain MUCH larger cash reserves, which, in all likelihood, would translate to higher taxes (with no economic benefit from those taxes, since the additional revenues would have to be stockpiled instead of pumped back into the economy).

It's not a shell game; it's basic risk management.

Except that in insurance, premiums are tied to individual risk. I live in an area that doesn't experience floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tornados and that is a highly unlikely target for terrorist attacks. While I agree that pooling state resources reduces the individual risk to any particular state, if we were really following a commercial insurance model, the folks who exhibit safe home purchasing behavior (analogy clean driving record) would pay lower taxes than those who buy in hazardous areas (analogy reckless/DUI drivers).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[jcd11235 0]

livendive

Except that in insurance, premiums are tied to individual risk.

That's true to some extent, but no two individuals in a risk pool are ever exactly the same risk. I'm not sure whether or not states provide funds for the federal program according to their individual risk or not. I suspect that they do, at least to some extent.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,150]

jcd11235

***Except that in insurance, premiums are tied to individual risk.

That's true to some extent, but no two individuals in a risk pool are ever exactly the same risk. I'm not sure whether or not states provide funds for the federal program according to their individual risk or not. I suspect that they do, at least to some extent.

My house is in what is, according to the Feds, a flood risk area (100 yards from a rather small creek). We've had 3 "100 year floods" in the past 10 years but the water hasn't come near my house.

I am not convinced of the accuracy of the risk analysis, or the definition of a "100 year flood".

...

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

[OHCHUTE 0]

Since tornado's are so dangerous, everyone living in tornado alley should be forced to submit fingerprint cards to FBI for obvious reasons, pay annual fee for a tornado living area resident license, be forced to take tornado security training, at least 5 hours per year, be forced to own vHF radio's, be forced to have adaquate tornado protection, must wear helmet during any type of storm ....says the liberal as tornado's are so scary and the public must be protected from itself that we need all these regulations and controls. OH this goes for farm animals and pets too.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

******www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4484462;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

As stated
Just a sick attempt on your post to relate that thread to the devestation in OK
Not surprising

Seems YOUR party are the political hacks related to this

YOU started the political thread. YOU, not me.

Get over yourself.

I created this thread in response to your sick post in the other thread

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gravitymaster 0]

DanG

Quote

Mostly seems as a way for fat cats to build a home on the beach that no private insurance company would touch.

Like all those fat cats in the 9th ward of New Orleans?

At some point the government has to stop subsidizing every lifestyle "choice".

Choosing to live in an area with a known history of hurricanes carries with it the responsibility of insuring your "lifestyle" choice. If you can't afford the insurance, then you can't afford the house.

[normiss 897]

Homeowners already do.

Part of lifestyle choices are renters and those relying upon government subsidized housing to some degree.

[kallend 2,150]

Do you ever wonder why no-one takes you seriously?

...

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

[rushmc 23]

kallend

Do you ever wonder why no-one takes you seriously?

You using my mirror again?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi John,

Quote

I am not convinced of the accuracy of the risk analysis, or the definition of a "100 year flood".

IMO this is the crux of the problem; just how these things are determined/defined.

The secondary problem is that, in many cases, there is no process for challenging the conclusions. This leaves the home-owner to pay excessive rates when, in reality, he is not in danger.

JerryBaumchen

[billvon 3,119]

Both of you cut it out.