Can it be true? Hurricanes & the uninsured...
Sep 6th, 2004, 08:27 AM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Can it be true? Hurricanes & the uninsured...
My niece, who has lived in St. Pete for two years now, tells me that friends there have informed her, in the event of a devastating hurricane, that people who have uninsured property, be it mobile homes and their furnishings, homes built in areas where they can't be insured......... If a hurricane destroys such, that FEMA (the government.... with our tax money) comes in and "reimburses" the property owners, helps them rebuild, etc., that the insurance companies really end up paying not nearly as much as you'd think. In other words, she's saying the federal taxpayer ends up paying for people who don't insure their own property....... I don't know if she's misunderstanding some of this or if I'm misunderstanding her. She says she knows people there who don't worry about the fact that they don't have insurance (even though they can afford it.) They say "it will be taken care of." Anybody who knows more about this kind of thing?
Sep 6th, 2004, 08:33 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the FEMA press release. Grants and low-interest loans, thanks to you and me:
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13766
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=13766
Sep 6th, 2004, 08:36 AM
#4
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ) is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is headed up by the brother of the current governor of Florida. Both of whom are eager to stay in the favor of Florida's electorate.
Sep 6th, 2004, 08:45 AM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't misunderstand me .... I have absolutely no problem with helping those who genuinely cannot afford insurance because of their health, misfortune, etc., but my niece's friends buy their coffee at Starbuck's every morning, make at least $40,000 per year, and just don't bother to insure their stuff! That aggravates me......
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:03 AM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
bonnie, some areas that are not flood zones homeowners are not required to purchase flood insurance. It's costly. When something like Frances comes through and dumps a foot of rain, everywhere becomes a flood zone.
Those people whos homeowners insurance that does not have a flood rider are screwed. FEMA comes in and assists.
I've never seen it having been the case that people just don't insure because FEMA will cover them.
Your own flood insurance (ask me about my mother's house and Hurricane Floyd) is much quicker than FEMA. FEMA can take weeks whereas your insurance company is done in under a week.
Those people whos homeowners insurance that does not have a flood rider are screwed. FEMA comes in and assists.
I've never seen it having been the case that people just don't insure because FEMA will cover them.
Your own flood insurance (ask me about my mother's house and Hurricane Floyd) is much quicker than FEMA. FEMA can take weeks whereas your insurance company is done in under a week.
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:16 AM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
GoTravel, since posting this, another friend tells me about her sister who lives right outside Ft. Lauderdale, who owns a mobile home. Neither the home nor it's contents are insured..... yet the sister and her husband work, and she flies to Raleigh at least twice a year, eats out, plays golf, but yet "can't afford to buy insurance." She doesn't worry about it, because she says there's so many others in the same boat, and "they always get help (not loans) if there's damage" as she puts it. Can't believe two people who live there could be all wrong.
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:16 AM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After Floyd came through NC a few years back, FEMA brought in a whole bunch of mobile home/trailer/rv houses for displaced people. I'm not sure if the living situation improved or not for the people who ended up living in them. I think they were allowed to stay for 18 months while recovery efforts went on. These were for people with no other options. My guess is they had to fill out a whole bunch of paperwork before they were assigned one of these homes.
FEMA also bought land in low-lying areas removed the homes and declared the area unbuildable. I think that went on in Wilson or Tarboro.
I also remember a news story on FEMA by John Stousel of 20/20 (Give me a break). I think he was able to purchase affordable insurance for his beach property from the government and then the government would rebuild/reimburse after a claim.
FEMA also bought land in low-lying areas removed the homes and declared the area unbuildable. I think that went on in Wilson or Tarboro.
I also remember a news story on FEMA by John Stousel of 20/20 (Give me a break). I think he was able to purchase affordable insurance for his beach property from the government and then the government would rebuild/reimburse after a claim.
Sep 7th, 2004, 06:53 AM
#9
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonnie, do you realize we subsidize the war in Iraq, the US military, the rich, the poor, the elderly, the airline industry, the huge ballooning federal deficit, etc? This is a classic example of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. The people who pay for flood insurance surely need it (I'm one of those people) and yet this go around I was not able to collect on it. So I'm subsidizing all those others who can. That is the price one pays for buying in a flood zone.
I know how you feel though. It is a shame having to pay for this ballooning federal deficit. I'll bet you 'll be happy when your kids take over the bills for the next 40 years.
I know how you feel though. It is a shame having to pay for this ballooning federal deficit. I'll bet you 'll be happy when your kids take over the bills for the next 40 years.
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:03 AM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right that SOME people take advantage of the situation (is that a surprise?). How is this different from a person who doesn't have any health insurance and gets into a major car accident without auto insurance. Do you think the police come by and say, "oh, no insurance. Ok, lay here and die"? No, you and I end up indirectly paying for their recovery. The government sponsors all kinds of programs for "poor" kids to assure they get meals, especially at school. Do you think there aren't kids whose parents COULD afford the meals who are also getting them for free? There are dozens of examples of ways that our taxes end up supporting people who either can't or don't take care of themselves. That's sad, but the way it is.
That said, it is my understanding that when a claim is made to FEMA from someone with major damage, there is at least some background check. If it is discovered that they are not truly in "need" then I'm not so sure the money is so easily handed out. Of course it would be silly to think that the system is anywhere near perfect, however.
That said, it is my understanding that when a claim is made to FEMA from someone with major damage, there is at least some background check. If it is discovered that they are not truly in "need" then I'm not so sure the money is so easily handed out. Of course it would be silly to think that the system is anywhere near perfect, however.
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:11 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
TandooriGirl and Patrick, of course, I realize we subsidize many, many things. And I don't quite get your tone, TG - "I know how you feel though. It is a shame having to pay for this ballooning federal deficit. I'll bet you 'll be happy when your kids take over the bills for the next 40 years." Your point?
The fact that lots of people take advantage of others doesn't make it right!!! And I'm not truly surprised (I've been around a long time!
) But I still find it aggravating....
The fact that lots of people take advantage of others doesn't make it right!!! And I'm not truly surprised (I've been around a long time!
) But I still find it aggravating....
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:16 AM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. society -- an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization.
When you choose to live in a society, and share the benefits of that economic organzation, there is a price to pay. The question then becomes not if you pay - but how you pay.
Hurricane Andrew wiped out every dollar of profit that insurance companies had EVER made in the State of Florida with homeowner's insurance. Don't you think they recouped their loss in part by increasing premiums throughout the country? Is that increased premium all that different from some Federal Government allocation to increased funding for Hurricane damage.
The fact is when it comes to things like insurance and FEMA, you may not ever need the help, but allowing other's access to that help, insures that if you need it, it is available.
The fact is virtually every state in the Union will have citizens impacted at some point by a natural, or man-made disaster. Ask those in California about wildfires, those along the Mississippi in 1993 about the floods, those in Downtown NY about the devastation of the World Trade Center.
BTW, the other reality of our society is that things like people unable to afford insurance is part of the price we collectively pay for wanting low prices when we shop for food, consumer goods, and travel. When you start looking for the $99 fares between NY and LA, or the $39 hotel room near Disney or the $1.19 toothpaste you should recognize their is a price to pay for that. In many cases its accepting the reality that the people who provide those services subsidize the cost through lower employee wages or cutting things like Healthcare coverage. Think I'm wrong? Then why is the State of California paying about $70 million a year in social service payments to Wal-Mart employees.
When you choose to live in a society, and share the benefits of that economic organzation, there is a price to pay. The question then becomes not if you pay - but how you pay.
Hurricane Andrew wiped out every dollar of profit that insurance companies had EVER made in the State of Florida with homeowner's insurance. Don't you think they recouped their loss in part by increasing premiums throughout the country? Is that increased premium all that different from some Federal Government allocation to increased funding for Hurricane damage.
The fact is when it comes to things like insurance and FEMA, you may not ever need the help, but allowing other's access to that help, insures that if you need it, it is available.
The fact is virtually every state in the Union will have citizens impacted at some point by a natural, or man-made disaster. Ask those in California about wildfires, those along the Mississippi in 1993 about the floods, those in Downtown NY about the devastation of the World Trade Center.
BTW, the other reality of our society is that things like people unable to afford insurance is part of the price we collectively pay for wanting low prices when we shop for food, consumer goods, and travel. When you start looking for the $99 fares between NY and LA, or the $39 hotel room near Disney or the $1.19 toothpaste you should recognize their is a price to pay for that. In many cases its accepting the reality that the people who provide those services subsidize the cost through lower employee wages or cutting things like Healthcare coverage. Think I'm wrong? Then why is the State of California paying about $70 million a year in social service payments to Wal-Mart employees.
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:20 AM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Booniebroad, do some research on the program and how it works, and if you still object to it, write to your Represenative and Senator. The link above is a good start, also run a search on the web and you will probably find groups with your same objections who have formed lobby groups (Common Cause is an example, take a look at http://www.commoncause.org/). It is the insurance companies with the paid lobbyists who get what they want, you should too. (Why certain forms of life insurance proceeds are generally not taxable when other forms of investment income is taxable is largely explained by the good efforts of the insurance lobby. . . )
Note that similar programs apply to people in earthquake zones and flood zones, and that not everyone abuses the system.
Note that similar programs apply to people in earthquake zones and flood zones, and that not everyone abuses the system.
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:33 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flood Insurance and Homeowners are a tricky thing when you live on the coast. I can't speak for all coasts but I can tell you about South Carolina.
Firstly, you must have it if you have a mortgage on your home.
Secondly, many many companies have stopped writing policies for those of us who live on the coast.
It is expensive. For my parents, they put the money the would pay on flood in the bank every year. My husband and I pay out the wazoo.
Thirdly, if your home is oceanfront and a storm destroys more than 50% of the home, you cannot rebuild. Gone, kaput, finished, SOL.
Firstly, you must have it if you have a mortgage on your home.
Secondly, many many companies have stopped writing policies for those of us who live on the coast.
It is expensive. For my parents, they put the money the would pay on flood in the bank every year. My husband and I pay out the wazoo.
Thirdly, if your home is oceanfront and a storm destroys more than 50% of the home, you cannot rebuild. Gone, kaput, finished, SOL.
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:37 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Please note here, I am not complaining about people who genuinely need assistance, through no fault of their own - I AM COMPLAINING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD INSURANCE, AND DON'T BUY IT! But WHY would you build a house in a flood zone, knowing it is a flood zone??? If you do, then your property is washed away, WHY should I pay a dime for that, when you could have built elsewhere (not in a flood zone)? I don't understand why people do that.........
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:42 AM
#17
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Such an easy theory. So you think no one should live within 25 miles of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico --period???? That is all a flood zone, not to mention half of the rest of the United States. And while we're at it, no one should be allowed to build or live in California because they are in an earthquake zone. And no one should live in Colorado because they could have a forest fire. And. . .
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:48 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"But WHY would you build a house in a flood zone, knowing it is a flood zone"
Bonnie, when would you like those people who live within a few miles of the Mississippi River to move? How about the countless millions of others that live in areas that have are susceptible to floods.
Bonnie, when would you like those people who live within a few miles of the Mississippi River to move? How about the countless millions of others that live in areas that have are susceptible to floods.
Sep 7th, 2004, 07:54 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
You would be surprised what is considered a flood zone.
FEMA designates:
Flood Zone A An area inundated by 100-year flooding that don't have base flood elevations.
Flood Zone B An area inundated by 100-year flooding to which base flood elevations have been established.
Flood Zone VF An area inundated by 100-year flooding with additional hazards which are tidal waves or surges.
Flood Zone X-500 An area inundated by either 500-year flooding, 100-year flooding with an average depth of less than one foot and an area of less than one mile, or an area protected by levees (New Orleans).
Flood Zone X An area outside the 100-year flood plains.
Additionally Bonnie, your house could be built on a particular soil that doesn't drain as well as another soil. If you get hit with the same type of rain parts of Florida received, it could turn your neighborhood into a flood plain.
It really is not a cut and dry situation.
For what it is worth, NYC sits in a flood plain. The East River isn't a river but a tidal estuary.
FEMA designates:
Flood Zone A An area inundated by 100-year flooding that don't have base flood elevations.
Flood Zone B An area inundated by 100-year flooding to which base flood elevations have been established.
Flood Zone VF An area inundated by 100-year flooding with additional hazards which are tidal waves or surges.
Flood Zone X-500 An area inundated by either 500-year flooding, 100-year flooding with an average depth of less than one foot and an area of less than one mile, or an area protected by levees (New Orleans).
Flood Zone X An area outside the 100-year flood plains.
Additionally Bonnie, your house could be built on a particular soil that doesn't drain as well as another soil. If you get hit with the same type of rain parts of Florida received, it could turn your neighborhood into a flood plain.
It really is not a cut and dry situation.
For what it is worth, NYC sits in a flood plain. The East River isn't a river but a tidal estuary.
Sep 7th, 2004, 09:00 AM
#20
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just figured out that this thread is really about travel...wow..for a second i thouhgt it wasn't.
To answer Patricks' "why would people build a house in a flodd zone..?" I suppose for the same reason that people move to Florida where there are hurricanes or to California where there are earthqquakes..they never think "it" will happen to them.
To answer Patricks' "why would people build a house in a flodd zone..?" I suppose for the same reason that people move to Florida where there are hurricanes or to California where there are earthqquakes..they never think "it" will happen to them.
