$50.5 Billion for Sandy relief
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() The more I think about this, the more I wonder; is it really the job of the Federal government to help me rebuild my house if it gets destroyed in a hurricane? A cheap or even free loan sure, or expedited funds to rebuild infrastructure that is Federal responsibility anyway, but the more I hear about how "Washington" has turned it's back on the folks whose homes were destroyed and are still living in tents the more I wonder how much the "Government" should really be doing. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Did most that lost their homes have or not have flood insurance and to what extent does flood insurance cover? Or does a disaster like this just completely put the insurance companies out of business? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() skipg - 2013-01-29 3:24 PM Did most that lost their homes have or not have flood insurance and to what extent does flood insurance cover? Or does a disaster like this just completely put the insurance companies out of business? Great questions, and I don't know the answers. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() skipg - 2013-01-29 3:24 PM Did most that lost their homes have or not have flood insurance and to what extent does flood insurance cover? Or does a disaster like this just completely put the insurance companies out of business? Flood insurance is a joke. It would cost me $1600 per year and has a $10k deductible. It covers only the subterranean level of your home and not the contents of that. So, flood insurance covers the concrete walls of my foundation and nothing more. At the above price. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Problem I have is that as a resident of FL, I get screwed bad for all the hurricanes we had 5 years ago while the entire planned community I'm in was built with new wind loading and flood prevention standards. So if a hurricane hits and nothing happens to our homes, my premium shouldn't go up right? |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-01-29 4:23 PM Problem I have is that as a resident of FL, I get screwed bad for all the hurricanes we had 5 years ago while the entire planned community I'm in was built with new wind loading and flood prevention standards. So if a hurricane hits and nothing happens to our homes, my premium shouldn't go up right? Umm, that's not likely. You should get a deduction in your premiums now, but share the risk that a payout will happen and rates will be adjusted for everyone. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() Yeah. That's what I thought. But I pay more than wood-framed house guy in a neighborhood that was 3 feet underwater. I know this for a fact. It's screwy I tell you. Just screwy. Glad I'm moving to hill country TX where all we have to worry about are fires.....and what's the likelihood of that happening??? ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() GomesBolt - 2013-01-29 3:28 PM Yeah. That's what I thought. But I pay more than wood-framed house guy in a neighborhood that was 3 feet underwater. I know this for a fact. It's screwy I tell you. Just screwy. Glad I'm moving to hill country TX where all we have to worry about are fires.....and what's the likelihood of that happening??? ![]() I have a buddy from Bastrop who will tell you all about that if you really want to know! |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I have never understood this. As a homeowner, I chose to have X amount of insurance. If my house gets destroyed and my insurance isn't enough to pay for me to rebuild...then I'm SOL. That's the end of the story. So why are we having to pay to rebuild someone how CHOSE to not have enough insurance. That also goes to cities because they are self-insured. Once again, why am I paying to rebuild the Boardwalk when the city CHOSE to not properly insure it. Kills me! |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() My opinion, which would probably not be popular, is to let the free market handle these things. If you want your house replaced when something bad happens, buy insurance. If nobody will insure a property because it's in a flood-prone area, then maybe it's not such a great idea to build there. Why should my tax dollars subsidize someone else's beach house? Our mentality that government should take care of everything is breaking us. I can't wait until my generation (Generation X) gets old - most of us are not covered by pension plans like our parents. Some of us have saved for retirement through 401(k) plans. Many others lease the most expensive car that they can, buy or rent the most expensive house they can, and don't save a dime for retirement (can't afford it after the cost of dining out, big screen TVs, and tattoos). How much you want to bet that the savers will have to bail out the spenders? |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kbeddoes - 2013-01-29 4:52 PM Im a saver myself and thankfully I'm in the position where I can see the light at the end of the retirement tunnel though its still at least 20 years away. Hopefully I will never have to go through a disaster like this that wipes a big chunk of it out! My opinion, which would probably not be popular, is to let the free market handle these things. If you want your house replaced when something bad happens, buy insurance. If nobody will insure a property because it's in a flood-prone area, then maybe it's not such a great idea to build there. Why should my tax dollars subsidize someone else's beach house? Our mentality that government should take care of everything is breaking us. I can't wait until my generation (Generation X) gets old - most of us are not covered by pension plans like our parents. Some of us have saved for retirement through 401(k) plans. Many others lease the most expensive car that they can, buy or rent the most expensive house they can, and don't save a dime for retirement (can't afford it after the cost of dining out, big screen TVs, and tattoos). How much you want to bet that the savers will have to bail out the spenders? |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() kbeddoes - 2013-01-29 4:52 PM My opinion, which would probably not be popular, is to let the free market handle these things. If you want your house replaced when something bad happens, buy insurance. If nobody will insure a property because it's in a flood-prone area, then maybe it's not such a great idea to build there. Why should my tax dollars subsidize someone else's beach house? Our mentality that government should take care of everything is breaking us. I can't wait until my generation (Generation X) gets old - most of us are not covered by pension plans like our parents. Some of us have saved for retirement through 401(k) plans. Many others lease the most expensive car that they can, buy or rent the most expensive house they can, and don't save a dime for retirement (can't afford it after the cost of dining out, big screen TVs, and tattoos). How much you want to bet that the savers will have to bail out the spenders? Bad answer. I bought my house in 1996 and had no trouble insuring it. We are 0.5 miles from open ocean. Hurricane Katrina hit and my insurance company decides they will moose a $5000 hurricane deductible. I can not change insurance because no other company will take me. I have made no claims, yet, am now considered a bad risk. The only thing which changed I could not control. If government did force my insurance company to keep me, they were going to drop me. And I have no alternative. My home is insured SOLELY because the state commissioner made them keep me. The free market could not decide. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() In a case like that I can see some form of government protection, because when you committed to purchase the house insurance was available. It would make sense to me that the government could require insurers to not cancel policies and limit premium increases to some reasonable amount (maybe 5% per year). What I don't understand is government subsidizing or forcing the provision of insurance for new development in a flood-prone area. If it doesn't make economic sense, there shouldn't be development there. For example, while I love the Outer Banks, does it make sense to keep building houses there? If the state government believes that the tax revenue from tourism is enough to pay for insurance subsidies, then fine. If they don't, then fine - build at your own risk.
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() pitt83 - 2013-01-29 2:08 PM skipg - 2013-01-29 3:24 PM Did most that lost their homes have or not have flood insurance and to what extent does flood insurance cover? Or does a disaster like this just completely put the insurance companies out of business? Flood insurance is a joke. It would cost me $1600 per year and has a $10k deductible. It covers only the subterranean level of your home and not the contents of that. So, flood insurance covers the concrete walls of my foundation and nothing more. At the above price. None of this is accurate. Yes flood insurance is expensive depending on where you live. The deductible is up to you on what you want to carry, it can be 3% of the value of the house or a set number you decide on. It does not only cover basements, it covers the whole house, the contents, and will pay living expenses. As to the private market taking care of it. The issue is when a flood strikes it does too much damage for private companies to handle. Most flood insurance is written through the National Flood Insurance program which is funded by the fed gubment because the feds can afford it and no one else can. If one company covers 10 houses and one burns down, they can fix the one house. If one company covers 10 houses and a flood comes through the company goes bankrupt overnight and no one gets their house fixed. All that said. They originally asked for 60 billion to fix everything. 7 billion or so was to shore up the flood insurance program so they could pay claims. So everyone who had flood insurance was covered under that $7 billion. The rest is "infrastructure" and a heck of a lot of fluff. The original bill that passed was to shore up the flood insurance account which it did. This recent bill is a freakin pork sandwich of wasted money. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Aarondb4 - 2013-01-29 5:32 PM pitt83 - 2013-01-29 2:08 PM skipg - 2013-01-29 3:24 PM Did most that lost their homes have or not have flood insurance and to what extent does flood insurance cover? Or does a disaster like this just completely put the insurance companies out of business? Flood insurance is a joke. It would cost me $1600 per year and has a $10k deductible. It covers only the subterranean level of your home and not the contents of that. So, flood insurance covers the concrete walls of my foundation and nothing more. At the above price. None of this is accurate. Yes flood insurance is expensive depending on where you live. The deductible is up to you on what you want to carry, it can be 3% of the value of the house or a set number you decide on. It does not only cover basements, it covers the whole house, the contents, and will pay living expenses. As to the private market taking care of it. The issue is when a flood strikes it does too much damage for private companies to handle. Most flood insurance is written through the National Flood Insurance program which is funded by the fed gubment because the feds can afford it and no one else can. If one company covers 10 houses and one burns down, they can fix the one house. If one company covers 10 houses and a flood comes through the company goes bankrupt overnight and no one gets their house fixed. All that said. They originally asked for 60 billion to fix everything. 7 billion or so was to shore up the flood insurance program so they could pay claims. So everyone who had flood insurance was covered under that $7 billion. The rest is "infrastructure" and a heck of a lot of fluff. The original bill that passed was to shore up the flood insurance account which it did. This recent bill is a freakin pork sandwich of wasted money. No, that's exactly my expirience trying to obtain flood insurance. If you could refer me to a provider who has better terms, I'd listen and possibly buy. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() mrbbrad - 2013-01-29 2:01 PM The more I think about this, the more I wonder; is it really the job of the Federal government to help me rebuild my house if it gets destroyed in a hurricane? A cheap or even free loan sure, or expedited funds to rebuild infrastructure that is Federal responsibility anyway, but the more I hear about how "Washington" has turned it's back on the folks whose homes were destroyed and are still living in tents the more I wonder how much the "Government" should really be doing. Welcome to the dark side. Be careful posting stuff like this because people might call you a fiscal conservative. <soapbox rant> From the you can't make this stuff up files. The amount of new revenue generated by the increased taxes on the rich that passed a few weeks ago is estimated to be $40B in 2013. Well we just spent $60B on Sandy. These idiots just do not get it, we are on a path of financial destruction as a country but they just keep on spending and spending and spending. The GAO released it's annual audit a couple weeks ago that concluded "Absent policy changes, the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path." Translated, if we do not get spending under control the dollar is going to collapse and take our economy with it!!! Yet, nobody on either side wants to cut ANYTHING, they just want to spend more and more and more. No matter what my opinion is on Sandy relief it doesn't matter because we simply cannot afford it. If we were financially responsible as a country then we could afford to do what's right when disaster strikes, but we do not have that luxury anymore in my humble opinion. </soapbox rant> |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() tuwood - 2013-01-29 4:16 PM mrbbrad - 2013-01-29 2:01 PM The more I think about this, the more I wonder; is it really the job of the Federal government to help me rebuild my house if it gets destroyed in a hurricane? A cheap or even free loan sure, or expedited funds to rebuild infrastructure that is Federal responsibility anyway, but the more I hear about how "Washington" has turned it's back on the folks whose homes were destroyed and are still living in tents the more I wonder how much the "Government" should really be doing. Welcome to the dark side. Be careful posting stuff like this because people might call you a fiscal conservative.
From the you can't make this stuff up files. The amount of new revenue generated by the increased taxes on the rich that passed a few weeks ago is estimated to be $40B in 2013. Well we just spent $60B on Sandy. These idiots just do not get it, we are on a path of financial destruction as a country but they just keep on spending and spending and spending. The GAO released it's annual audit a couple weeks ago that concluded "Absent policy changes, the federal government continues to face an unsustainable fiscal path." Translated, if we do not get spending under control the dollar is going to collapse and take our economy with it!!! Yet, nobody on either side wants to cut ANYTHING, they just want to spend more and more and more. No matter what my opinion is on Sandy relief it doesn't matter because we simply cannot afford it. If we were financially responsible as a country then we could afford to do what's right when disaster strikes, but we do not have that luxury anymore in my humble opinion.
Well sombody better get this straightened out because I need some birth control. Who exactly is supposed to pay for that? |
![]() ![]() |
Veteran![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Government Flood Insurance tops out at $250k. With most of these cases the Homeowner insurance won't cover these events because its caused by flood. So, with most of these houses well over $250k these folks are SOL. I agree why should I have to pay for your choice to live there and not to carry enough insurance. I wonder if this is the original bill that had the earmarks for Amtrak, Forest Service and few other tag alongs that had nothing to do with Sandy. But this gets no coverage. |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() sfm15 - 2013-01-29 8:02 PM Government Flood Insurance tops out at $250k. With most of these cases the Homeowner insurance won't cover these events because its caused by flood. So, with most of these houses well over $250k these folks are SOL. I agree why should I have to pay for your choice to live there and not to carry enough insurance. I wonder if this is the original bill that had the earmarks for Amtrak, Forest Service and few other tag alongs that had nothing to do with Sandy. But this gets no coverage. This has only been going on for 100 years... I fail to see why I am still responsible for you living on the beach. I live in Colorado... you know why... besides the awesome Rocky Mountains... there are no floods, no earthquakes, no tornadoes, and no hurricanes. If you CHOOSE to live in a place with all its beauty and rewards and KNOW you will have to rebuild every 5-10-15 years... then have fun with that. I choose not to... when will people start paying for my home. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() Aarondb4 - 2013-01-29 2:32 PM pitt83 - 2013-01-29 2:08 PM skipg - 2013-01-29 3:24 PM Did most that lost their homes have or not have flood insurance and to what extent does flood insurance cover? Or does a disaster like this just completely put the insurance companies out of business? Flood insurance is a joke. It would cost me $1600 per year and has a $10k deductible. It covers only the subterranean level of your home and not the contents of that. So, flood insurance covers the concrete walls of my foundation and nothing more. At the above price. None of this is accurate. Yes flood insurance is expensive depending on where you live. The deductible is up to you on what you want to carry, it can be 3% of the value of the house or a set number you decide on. It does not only cover basements, it covers the whole house, the contents, and will pay living expenses. As to the private market taking care of it. The issue is when a flood strikes it does too much damage for private companies to handle. Most flood insurance is written through the National Flood Insurance program which is funded by the fed gubment because the feds can afford it and no one else can. If one company covers 10 houses and one burns down, they can fix the one house. If one company covers 10 houses and a flood comes through the company goes bankrupt overnight and no one gets their house fixed. All that said. They originally asked for 60 billion to fix everything. 7 billion or so was to shore up the flood insurance program so they could pay claims. So everyone who had flood insurance was covered under that $7 billion. The rest is "infrastructure" and a heck of a lot of fluff. The original bill that passed was to shore up the flood insurance account which it did. This recent bill is a freakin pork sandwich of wasted money. You made some good and valid points regarding the NFP. I'll disagree that these catastrophic events are not able to be handled by the private market. The Insurance carriers buy insurance for other catastrophic events, it's called Reinsurance, basically the insurance companies selling off some of their risk to big reinsurance carriers. The most common occurrence where that would come into play would be a tornado. There are private carriers that offer flood insurance, for the most part though they are only interested in offering it to "high valued" dwellings. I think the big reason they don't is that the NFP is priced below market so it's not profitable at the current pricing structure..... ie tax payer subsidized. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2013-01-29 9:17 PM sfm15 - 2013-01-29 8:02 PM Government Flood Insurance tops out at $250k. With most of these cases the Homeowner insurance won't cover these events because its caused by flood. So, with most of these houses well over $250k these folks are SOL. I agree why should I have to pay for your choice to live there and not to carry enough insurance. I wonder if this is the original bill that had the earmarks for Amtrak, Forest Service and few other tag alongs that had nothing to do with Sandy. But this gets no coverage. This has only been going on for 100 years... I fail to see why I am still responsible for you living on the beach. I live in Colorado... you know why... besides the awesome Rocky Mountains... there are no floods, no earthquakes, no tornadoes, and no hurricanes. If you CHOOSE to live in a place with all its beauty and rewards and KNOW you will have to rebuild every 5-10-15 years... then have fun with that. I choose not to... when will people start paying for my home. That REALLY shrinks where one can live. Especially the tornado thing. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() pitt83 - 2013-01-29 2:45 PMNo, that's exactly my expirience trying to obtain flood insurance. If you could refer me to a provider who has better terms, I'd listen and possibly buy.
Ouch!!!!!! I just looked at the NFIP rates for coastal area and man it's brutal!!! http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/residential_coverage/policy_rates.jsp |
![]() ![]() |
Member![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2013-01-29 9:17 PM sfm15 - 2013-01-29 8:02 PM Government Flood Insurance tops out at $250k. With most of these cases the Homeowner insurance won't cover these events because its caused by flood. So, with most of these houses well over $250k these folks are SOL. I agree why should I have to pay for your choice to live there and not to carry enough insurance. I wonder if this is the original bill that had the earmarks for Amtrak, Forest Service and few other tag alongs that had nothing to do with Sandy. But this gets no coverage. This has only been going on for 100 years... I fail to see why I am still responsible for you living on the beach. I live in Colorado... you know why... besides the awesome Rocky Mountains... there are no floods, no earthquakes, no tornadoes, and no hurricanes. If you CHOOSE to live in a place with all its beauty and rewards and KNOW you will have to rebuild every 5-10-15 years... then have fun with that. I choose not to... when will people start paying for my home. As somebody above says, we aren't talking about just bailing out the people living on the beach. There was a lot of public infrastructure damaged as well. I agree that this has been going on for 100 of years. So where does it stop. The area where this hit is one of the wealthier parts of the country and from my understanding this is the first major disaster in some time. In the mean time they have sent their tax money to places like FL, LA and TX when hurricanes have hit there to help rebuild and I don't think anybody made a peep; it's just what needs to be done as a society. So who's going to draw the first line and say "from now on no more help". That's great that you live where there are no natural disasters. But how do you get many of the products you get everyday? Probably come in through some ocean port. Your 401K might be managed by somebody that lives on the east coast. Are we some how supposed to not tell people to live where there might be natural disasters? If my tax money needs to go to help out the people that make of living by making my life better (and I hope I do something that makes their life better), so be it. It's part of living in society. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Natural disasters are not even remotely similar to a fire, a car accident, a burglary, etc. They are widespread catastrophes that could cripple an entire region of the country. Help after such events is one of the main reasons I think government exists. I'm from Mississippi. Without the federal aid after Katrina we wouldn't even have bridges on I-10, much less any type of industry whatsoever. What the country would have would be a few hundred thousand unemployed and homeless people. I think disaster aid is a much better bargain. |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() powerman - 2013-01-29 10:17 PM sfm15 - 2013-01-29 8:02 PM Government Flood Insurance tops out at $250k. With most of these cases the Homeowner insurance won't cover these events because its caused by flood. So, with most of these houses well over $250k these folks are SOL. I agree why should I have to pay for your choice to live there and not to carry enough insurance. I wonder if this is the original bill that had the earmarks for Amtrak, Forest Service and few other tag alongs that had nothing to do with Sandy. But this gets no coverage. This has only been going on for 100 years... I fail to see why I am still responsible for you living on the beach. I live in Colorado... you know why... besides the awesome Rocky Mountains... there are no floods, no earthquakes, no tornadoes, and no hurricanes. If you CHOOSE to live in a place with all its beauty and rewards and KNOW you will have to rebuild every 5-10-15 years... then have fun with that. I choose not to... when will people start paying for my home. No, that's not possible. As a pharmaceutical researcher in drug discovery, my choices (if I had the entire US and could move with my job being my only consideration) are: Boston Connecticut New Jeresy Philly. All of these have had hurricane damage either from Sandy or Irene (2010) Or San Diego or San Francisco, which both have suffered from either fires or earthquakes. Sol if I am a biochemist and want to discover drugs and do basic research, I am always at the mercy of FEMA. So, the choice is yours: Either we cure cancer or you help occasionally with flood insurance for $50B once in a lifetime. |
|