It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian insurers won't pay anything to those who were flooded

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by starless and bible black
reply to post by Travlla
 


Guess my mind's slipping. I had heard the guns were taken from the people.


Most people yes..
Gun clubs and I think farmers and licenced hunters can still get them..
Ohh and criminals don't seem to have any issues getting them either..


You need a firearms licence and a reason to own a firearm (self defence is not a reason)in my state you can shoot legally in state forests,i paid $15 for a permit to shoot feral animals in a state forest that's my reason,no problems,a lot of people think it's a lot harder than it really is,no semi auto's is a downer,but eh i can still own a pump action rifle but weirdly not a pump action shotgun ,A lot of people sold their clapped out old guns to the government (yes they paid for them) got top dollar for crap and purchased new gun's,I'm am not a member of a club or a farmer (i live in Melbourne) and are not a pro hunter.




posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


They were MAN-MADE floods... big difference there!

Seriously, if the government doesn't side with the people on this one, people need to sue.
edit on 22-1-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



Hi there,

In the following post I discussed the reasons behind why the floods were not man made

www.abovetopsecret.com...

in summary;
• the only man made component of rain making does not significantly affect the volume of atmospheric water vapour to the extent that would produce devisating floods
• An accumulation of drop seeding matter in the biosphere over a long period of time is extremely unlikely. I refer to the type that could become airborne again.
• Qld did not run the drop seeding program in the wet season or in recent times for that matter.

I also outline some ideas about how one would go about verifying this, eg. FOI and chemical analysis of the flood rain itself.

The prudent move by the government would be to exhaustively characterize the risk of floods (in QLD first then perhaps elsewhere) and introduce policy to firstly change the pattern of urban development and secondly improve the way insurance companies go about educating policy holders on the risk of natural disasters and how to engage the public in the process as well. Fundamentally the worst possible outcome is for all policy holders to compensated for the full damage incurred by the floods on each and every house with a policy . This is because the long term implications are significantly worse than the relatively small benefit now. This statement is specific to just this event and its size.



edit on 24-1-2011 by pezza because: spelling

edit on 24-1-2011 by pezza because: add word



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Because those were not floods... according to them.

Australian insurers rule overflowing rivers are not floods, gov't may intervene (DPA)


You want to give us some more info on where you got the lead story from ?
I've just checked the above link and it's basically 100% Jewish in content.

I even checked news items going back a few additional days on that site and nothing to be found about the QLD floods ... so pardon me if I come across somewhat suspicious of this thread and it's purpose.



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
check out this generous act of threadmanship,



Originally posted by hhcore
The Government should stand by the it's citizens, because if this was the result of cloud seeding - the Gov't. definitely had to have known about it, and approved of it. As far as insurance companies are concerned, they excel at taking your money, but damn stingy on paying the piper when the time comes. They should be extinguished for all they're worth.


this man made flood suggestion is incredibly unlikely. To be honest it is not even worth discussing in a formal situation. To be fair I would be happy to help anyone who wanted to disprove the theory for themselves from some tests. Just PM me.




Originally posted by questcequecest
this makes me feel physically sick, it really does. one day i will commit suicide over something like this
theres no point in living when this sort of crap goes on, seriously
the system is that far gone.


i know you are kidding, dont be too upset by this. But more importantly, do not place too much emphasis on the media interpretation of the handling of the flood, specifically the type that paints the picture that the "system" is corrupt or failed or other alarmest angle. The overwhelming majority of people involved in the systems dealing with the public in general have exceptional integrity and truly want to make impact that is in the best interest of the public. This is seldom covered in the media. The type of thing that makes it to the TV are the instances where the system is "crap" .. The notion that the system is systematically crap (ie. across the board) is far from the truth



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
They'd better pay.
Or else this government is finished, and insurers will be beaten to death outside their homes.


The majority of Australian public will make their opinion based on the bigger picture. I would also think they will be judged on how they made a massive impact in the recovery despite the fact they did not have to strong arm the insurance companies into paying out all policy holders regardless of flood or no flood cover.



Originally posted by OneLife
Wow, just wow. The selling out of the human race by the wealthier. Sickeningly profound. I only hope what's taken from them and everyone else in the world is given back tenfold one day.


again, the notion that the "people in power" (in corporate world or government) are systemically unethical, greedy, uncaring (or other) is not true. To prove this, all that one needs to do is to perhaps talk to someone on the board of directors of top companys in Australia. Ask them to discuss their "vision" or personal philosophies on what they are doing. Then be explicit and ask them how they can justify this in light of the fact they are also supposed to make a profit for their company. Assess how genuine they are in their response. You will find a few that fit the mold of one of these evil people but the majority are not. The type of answers you will receive will blow your mind (in a good way
)



Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


LMAO .... "over flowing rivers are not floods" .. what the hell is a flood then?

I hate insurance.. we would solve so much of the worlds problems by making every form of insurance illegal!!


it indeed is easy to hate. There clearly is a disconnect between those in insurance companies and the average person with no understanding of hydrology.

I think their is a misconception that their role in society is to safeguard against widespread disasters in addition to small or one off incidents of damage. Indeed for them it is a gambling game but there are practical limitations to the scope. Beyond the limitation it is not financially viable. There simply is not enough capitol to cover this. The definitions of floods I believe has the function of formally categorizing events that are part of a large scale nature and those that are of a more localised in nature. The use of technical definitions for a water incursion is the defining component, it makes the assessment process "water tight" (pardon the pun) with little room for ambiguity from a scientific point of view.

In saying all this, it is incredibly unfortunate for the victims. But what happens is these victims will provide a wealth experience to the general public. This is critical experience that is fundamental to improve the overall resilience of our habitation to endure large scale disasters. It is what forces a paradigm shift for the benefit of all.

Another point not related any post thus far is loss/benefit aspect of such a disasters. I put forward the following thought provoking idea, how many flood victims have gained more than they have lost by the floods? It is the sort of idea discussed in relation to fire gutting a home. Some tell stories of the purgings that results in a "rebirth" in life. All those old possessions, ones that tie in to negative times in our life. An anchor that is dragged along, stopping us from moving on to new chapters. I actually have a number in mind (ie. the ratio of those who will benefit more than they will lose). But I am not going to share this

edit on 24-1-2011 by pezza because: word change

edit on 24-1-2011 by pezza because: word add



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Still waiting for the OP to supply validation that this thread is based on a legitimate source.
So far I've seen no confirmation forthcoming.

Whilst we continue to wait for the OP to confirm, have any of you personally seen anything, anywhere that confirms the OP's claim that Oz insurance companies are preparing to stiff the flood victims of QLD ?



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
Still waiting for the OP to supply validation that this thread is based on a legitimate source.
So far I've seen no confirmation forthcoming.

Whilst we continue to wait for the OP to confirm, have any of you personally seen anything, anywhere that confirms the OP's claim that Oz insurance companies are preparing to stiff the flood victims of QLD ?

It's been all over the news in the last week,i dunno how you could have missed it



posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Ive never had insurance for anything and this is why, they try to get out of paying for anything and everything.

Of course youre likely to end up paying them more than youd get back anyway, that has to happen for them to make a profit. Its basically a scam.




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join