Hurricane Irene... The Damage Assessment

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 5:23 AM GMT
    Ive been reading up on how the US is handling the damage from Irene.. though the initial direct damage was fortunately less than anticipated... the cumulative damage from the aftermath seems to have brought out new controversies... flood insurance, being the domain of the federal budget, is now coming under seige the same way health care was attacked by those against any form of socialist government. I have seen comments such as "you live in a flood area, you pay your own bills". forgetting that unforeseen disasters can befall any of us, whether we chose to live there or not....

    What do you think? Should taxpayers pay for insurance against natural disasters that are unforseen in scope, such as these?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 5:34 AM GMT
    GreenHopper saidWhat do you think? Should taxpayers pay for insurance against natural disasters that are unforseen in scope, such as these?
    Absolutely.
    The west coast has earthquakes, wildfires, and volcanoes.
    The midwest has tornadoes, is due for an earthquake (New Madrid faultline), and severe storms that produce floods and damaging winds.
    The Gulf Coast and East Coast has hurricanes, occasional wildfires, and frequent flooding.

    Nobody is exempt from natural disasters.
  • turtleneckjoc...

    Posts: 4685

    Aug 31, 2011 1:12 PM GMT
    Yes they should, however, the insurance companies should not drop you or have you pay higher premiums after a disaster strikes.

    Case in point is Florida. Even though I'm 40 miles inland from the Atlantic coast, my homeowners insurance carrier dropped coverage after Hurricane Charley came through Central Florida seven years ago. They wanted to eliminate their risks, but isn't that why we pay the premiums?? To cover against these risks??? Now, it is harder than ever to purchase homeowners coverage in Florida as the major insurers have pulled out from doing business here.

    After Hurricane Andrew blew through South Florida years ago, the same thing happened and a statewide insurance pool was formed for those needing insurance, however, one had to live east of I-95 in Palm Beach/Broward or Miami-Dade Counties. This was known as the JUA and from what I heard it was gawd awful expensive. I don't think the JUA is in existance any longer (funds may have run out or Republicans slashed the funding). I hope some of our South Florida guys here can chime in on this one to clarify or bring us current on this topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 31, 2011 1:52 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    GreenHopper saidWhat do you think? Should taxpayers pay for insurance against natural disasters that are unforseen in scope, such as these?
    Absolutely.
    The west coast has earthquakes, wildfires, and volcanoes.
    The midwest has tornadoes, is due for an earthquake (New Madrid faultline), and severe storms that produce floods and damaging winds.
    The Gulf Coast and East Coast has hurricanes, occasional wildfires, and frequent flooding.

    Nobody is exempt from natural disasters.

    The North has blizzards.. no one talks about blizzards. icon_sad.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Aug 31, 2011 2:25 PM GMT
    GreenHopper said
    What do you think? Should taxpayers pay for insurance against natural disasters that are unforseen in scope, such as these?


    When it's all said and done, taxpayers foot a big portion of the damage bill, regardless of who or how many is insured. Who pays for repairing/replacing the infrastructure? Taxpayers. The whole thing is a give and take relationship.

    When it comes to private property, consider what happened to the lower 9th Ward in New Orleans years after Katrina. So many people didn't have insurance and obviously can't do anything financially about their property. Meanwhile, the city government has to contend with the costs of these newly blighted neighborhoods. In the end, taxpayers have to take a portion of the costs because the city has to move forward as a whole.