WTF?

[chucK]

Did you have to prove evidence of lack of insurance?

 

If yes, then WHAT ARCHENEMY SAID!!!

 

If no, GODDAMNED GOVT. BAILING OUT THEIR RICH INSURANCE FRIENDS!!!

[tvashtarkatena]

THe best earthquake insurance is, if your home is severely damaged in such an event, burn it down.

 

The best insurance is buy a home that's survived a couple of major earthquakes intact, and retrofit it. Otherwise, good luck collecting on your policy after any major natural disaster these days.

 

Incredibly, my 1911 chimney survived the last earthquake. It lost a couple of bricks. When I went up there to check it out, all of the mortar had been reduced to sand by the elements. Rather than replace it with an uglier than hell manufactured chimney, I rebuilt it from the roofline up (the mortar lower down was fine), reducing it down from a rectangle to a square cross section to reduce some of its weight. That was WAY more work than I thought it would be.

[dt_3pin]

Arch,

 

You've obviously never dealt with an insurance company in the wake of a natural disaster. People who are adequately covered are often denied coverage by how damage is characterized. For example, my dad's house in Florida was destroyed by a tidal surge attributable to hurricane Ivan. Because he had no roof damage (just installed a bomber new roof), USAA characterized the damage as "flood" rather than "hurricane," with the difference (among many) being depreciated compensation under the flood policy rather than full compensation under the hurricane policy. Additionally, flood insurance did not cover dislocation expenses, as the hurricane policy would.

 

As a result, insurers were able to avoid properly compensating folks who were insured. That's where FEMA stepped in - helping people fucked by their insurers. Oh but wait, it's my dad's fault.

 

Don't forget, the insurance profit strategy is two-fold: (1) collect premiums; (2) deny coverage.

 

[dt_3pin]

I don't trust the government enough to take care of me in a disaster.

 

But you trust insurance companies? Sucker.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't trust the government enough to take care of me in a disaster.

 

But you trust insurance companies? Sucker.

 

WE MUST NATIONALIZE HOMEOWNER INSURANCE AS WELL AS HEALTH INSURANCE!

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Arch,

 

You've obviously never dealt with an insurance company in the wake of a natural disaster. People who are adequately covered are often denied coverage by how damage is characterized. For example, my dad's house in Florida was destroyed by a tidal surge attributable to hurricane Ivan. Because he had no roof damage (just installed a bomber new roof), USAA characterized the damage as "flood" rather than "hurricane," with the difference (among many) being depreciated compensation under the flood policy rather than full compensation under the hurricane policy. Additionally, flood insurance did not cover dislocation expenses, as the hurricane policy would.

 

As a result, insurers were able to avoid properly compensating folks who were insured. That's where FEMA stepped in - helping people fucked by their insurers. Oh but wait, it's my dad's fault.

 

Don't forget, the insurance profit strategy is two-fold: (1) collect premiums; (2) deny coverage.

 

With all due respect and sympathy to your father, it was partially his responsibility for choosing to live so close to the ocean in a hurricane prone area.

[JayB]

If you like this, you'll love paying to rebuild Florida after the next hurricane rolls through. Prevent insurers from pricing risk in an actuarially sound fashion, and guess what happens - they decline to underwrite it. Part II comes when - after they drive the insurers out of the state - the state government creates an "insurer of last resort" which charges rates that are substantially below those needed to underwrite the risk. Last I saw, Florida had something like $5-10 billion in reserves standing against something on the order of half a trillion in potential liabilities. Part III will come when the next Hurricane rolls in, bankrupts the state in one push, and you get to pay for the damage to their property instead of private insurers. Way to stick it to the corporations!

 

Had they not interfered in the insurance market, people who own or are considering owning homes in those areas would have to price the cost of insurance into their decisions about whether to stay in their homes, or to buy them in the first place. The most likely outcome would be a decline in the value of the homes that was commensurate with the increase in the premiums. People who couldn't afford to pay the premiums would have to sell. That's tough - but there's no right to home ownership, much less in a hazardous area - and far more people have been forced out of their homes by property tax levies than insurance premiums.

 

One of the greatest ironies about this situation is that those who are agitating most vocally for action on climate change are those who are typically arguing on behalf of rate-caps like these that have the effect of enouraging ever greater development of the very same coastal/floodplain areas that will be hardest hit by more intense hurricanes, severe weather events, etc.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

One of the greatest ironies about this situation is that those who are agitating most vocally for action on climate change are those who are typically arguing on behalf of rate-caps like these that have the effect of enouraging ever greater development of the very same coastal/floodplain areas that will be hardest hit by more intense hurricanes, severe weather events, etc.

 

 

Prove that statement. Names, please.

[JayB]

Democratic congressman in any state with extensive hurricane/flood risk and their constituents. Notable exceptions to the rule being the idiot Governor of Florida and Trent Lott.

[MATT_B]

Arch,

 

You've obviously never dealt with an insurance company in the wake of a natural disaster. People who are adequately covered are often denied coverage by how damage is characterized. For example, my dad's house in Florida was destroyed by a tidal surge attributable to hurricane Ivan. Because he had no roof damage (just installed a bomber new roof), USAA characterized the damage as "flood" rather than "hurricane," with the difference (among many) being depreciated compensation under the flood policy rather than full compensation under the hurricane policy. Additionally, flood insurance did not cover dislocation expenses, as the hurricane policy would.

 

As a result, insurers were able to avoid properly compensating folks who were insured. That's where FEMA stepped in - helping people fucked by their insurers. Oh but wait, it's my dad's fault.

 

Don't forget, the insurance profit strategy is two-fold: (1) collect premiums; (2) deny coverage.

 

I thought we where talking about a big goverment handout for those that chose not to get insurance? If you don't have insurance on you house and it goes up in flames, I don't think the goverment should be paying for your damages. I can see the goverment helping out with some displacemnt and relocation cost but not property replacement. If you can't afford insurance for your house maybe you can't really afford that house. If your insurance company trys to call a huricane a flood they should be strung up by there balls. Maybe that is where the goverment should spend their money. I'm hearing more and more about argubally deceptive tactics by insurance companies and it makes me sick. Things like changing phrasing things to sound much much better than they really are. From what I understand about insurance companies today it is not smart to skip the small print or blindly trust what anyone says.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I thought we where talking about a big goverment handout for those that chose not to get insurance?

 

No, that's a separate topic: HillaryCareII

[dt_3pin]

With all due respect and sympathy to your father, it was partially his responsibility for choosing to live so close to the ocean in a hurricane prone area.

 

Yes, he's responsible for where he lives. However, he, like thousands of other homeowners, attempted to ameliorate the risk he assumed by paying exorbinant insurance premiums. This otherwise rational decision-making was corrupted by an underlying false assumption that the insurance would actually cover those risks.

 

 

[dt_3pin]

I thought we where talking about . . . those that chose not to get insurance?

 

"Not covered" does not mean "not insured." That's my point.

 

I believe it's pretty hard to own a home without insurance unless you own it outright (ie no mortgage).

[chucK]

Trent Lott is arguing vocally for action on climate change?

 

"Who'd a thunk it?"

[Gary_Yngve]

I don't understand. Doesn't your mortgage require you to have homeowner's insurance?

[chucK]

yes, that's why he qualified with "unless you own it outright"

[chucK]

It's gonna be damned expensive to rebuild all those homes now that we've got this illegal immigration thing licked!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It's gonna be damned expensive to rebuild all those homes now that we've got this illegal immigration thing licked!

 

MORE REASON TO MAKE THEM ALL LEGAL THEY CAN DO ALL THE DRYWALLING FOR THE REBUILDING FOR 0.25 DOLLARS AN HOUR AND BE A FURTHER BOON TO OUR ECONOMY.

[tvashtarkatena]

Democratic congressman in any state with extensive hurricane/flood risk and their constituents. Notable exceptions to the rule being the idiot Governor of Florida and Trent Lott.

 

Nope. That's not a list of names. As I thought, you've just made this up. Prove me wrong.

[dinomyte]

I haven't read the entire thread, but....how many things to our taxes go to that we don't get any direct benefit from or don't agree with?

 

My property taxes go to schools, but I don't have any kids in school. People who pay to send their kids to private schools still pay for public schools. I guess our reward is that educated people are better for society?

 

Taxes go to fund the war. I'm guessing there are a couple people on here who don't agree with that one.

 

I'm sure that you folks can add many more things that taxes pay for that you don't like.

 

Money for uninsured folks is just one more.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

With all due respect and sympathy to your father, it was partially his responsibility for choosing to live so close to the ocean in a hurricane prone area.

 

Yes, he's responsible for where he lives. However, he, like thousands of other homeowners, attempted to ameliorate the risk he assumed by paying exorbinant insurance premiums. This otherwise rational decision-making was corrupted by an underlying false assumption that the insurance would actually cover those risks.

 

Fair enough. Again, no disrespect to family intended. I agree that USAA's argument was specious, even ludicrous, in the face of what actually happened. USAA is probably the best insurance company out there in making good on their promises (from personal experience). If THEY'RE balking, imagine how shittier insurance companies are behaving.

 

I do think it would make more sense to shift much of cost from these extra insurance premiums to better construction for the environment that homes must withstand (and stronger regulation as to where a home can be built in the first place). This would result in folks paying for their risky location up front as part of the home price, rather than throwing their money away on something they'll never get back from insurance companies. It would also make them think twice about purchasing in such a location in the first place. "Oh, BTW, local code requires that your home be built on stilts. That'll be an extra $100,000, please."

[archenemy]

Arch,

 

You've obviously never dealt with an insurance company in the wake of a natural disaster. People who are adequately covered are often denied coverage by how damage is characterized. For example, my dad's house in Florida was destroyed by a tidal surge attributable to hurricane Ivan. Because he had no roof damage (just installed a bomber new roof), USAA characterized the damage as "flood" rather than "hurricane," with the difference (among many) being depreciated compensation under the flood policy rather than full compensation under the hurricane policy. Additionally, flood insurance did not cover dislocation expenses, as the hurricane policy would.

 

As a result, insurers were able to avoid properly compensating folks who were insured. That's where FEMA stepped in - helping people fucked by their insurers. Oh but wait, it's my dad's fault.

 

Don't forget, the insurance profit strategy is two-fold: (1) collect premiums; (2) deny coverage.

Oh, is this obvious to you? Why don't you read my Index flood TR. I not only got introduced into the insurance world, but also the world of FEMA and tax aftermaths of disasters. I am quite familiar with the system, thanks.

[builder206]

MORE REASON TO MAKE THEM ALL LEGAL THEY CAN DO ALL THE DRYWALLING FOR THE REBUILDING FOR 0.25 DOLLARS AN HOUR AND BE A FURTHER BOON TO OUR ECONOMY.

 

Factual mid-course correction 4U: most 'em do piece work.

[Stefan]

Lest us not forget...many of the homes getting relief from the Federal Government also have SWIMMING POOLS.

 

Not all....but many do have them.

[dt_3pin]

Oh, is this obvious to you? Why don't you read my Index flood TR. I not only got introduced into the insurance world, but also the world of FEMA and tax aftermaths of disasters. I am quite familiar with the system, thanks.

 

Oh yeah, I remember that thread, so let me rephrase. Perhaps you've never been fucked in the ass by an insurance company in the wake of a natural disaster.

 

I hope your insurance worked better than it did for other people I know.