Do you think the Federal flood insurance needs to end? Re: post Sandy.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I just saw an article on CNN which I think makes a lot of sense:
Link

I'm usually not in favor of shrinking the government or its programs, but this is one case I take exception. I live in the area that experienced storms and flooding in the past, and the worst of it in the past few years. Common sense is telling me that a beach dwelling (or another risky location for real estate) will suffer devastation with almost 100% certainty at some point. Why do the taxpayers need to cover somebody's gamble, especially that will be lost anyhow?

I'm all for free healthcare and what not. But a beach dwelling is not healthcare. It's luxury. Nature will take its course sooner or later. It's time to cut off that perk.




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I see your point, and have seen it raised before, and the question I came back with was this: How many deaths do you think there would have been if a storm like sandy had hit south africa, or any less organized area?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I see your point, and have seen it raised before, and the question I came back with was this: How many deaths do you think there would have been if a storm like sandy had hit south africa, or any less organized area?


I have no clue. Please educate me on South Africa. Thank you.

It's just when I see a dwelling 100ft from the water line on a fairly flat beach... Can't help wondering.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
the way i see it, if you can afford to build on the beach or somewhere that's prone to catastrophic destruction,
you should be able to pay for the insurance to rebuild, or be able to rebuild out of your own pocket.

as the op said you have to know it's a gamble and why should someone else have to pay for your bad decision.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I see your point, and have seen it raised before, and the question I came back with was this: How many deaths do you think there would have been if a storm like sandy had hit south africa, or any less organized area?


I have no clue. Please educate me on South Africa. Thank you.

It's just when I see a dwelling 100ft from the water line on a fairly flat beach... Can't help wondering.


The numbers would be grotesque. The reason we see 130 deaths in a storm like this in this part of the world, and look at it as a huge number, is because of the programs we have in place for when these things happen.

Now, reform is certainly needed. But I personally will ALWAYS err toward helping those in need.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
the way i see it, if you can afford to build on the beach or somewhere that's prone to catastrophic destruction,
you should be able to pay for the insurance to rebuild, or be able to rebuild out of your own pocket.

as the op said you have to know it's a gamble and why should someone else have to pay for your bad decision.


Its not really about rebuilding. Its about getting the help needed in the meantime to survive. Most homeowners, especially in these type of areas, have insurance to pay for the rebuild. But it doesnt happen overnight, and people who lost their homes and possessions need help to get by until it does.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Interesting point. People are all for making smokers pay more under Obamacare since it's risky behavior.
Of course, it's easy to want to keep it around because "but by the grace of God, there go I"
Plus there are a lot of major cities on the coast, so you'd be putting a lot of people out to dry(unintended pun... heh). I don't think it's probable that NY will just up and move until the sea levels rise and it's under 5ft of water.

I also disagree with living on the coast being a luxury. Maybe for some cases, but fishing and shipping require access to the sea, and those are necessary industries.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   




Helping those in need is indeed in order, NOBODY questions that. Helicopters, canoes, food, blankets and fuel. By the way we were left without fuel for long enough for people to be shot at gas stations while fighting for gas. We didn't get much help as far as I can see.

But federal flood insurance is encouraging risky behavior, don't you think?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


i know what ur saying im pretty sure that most if not all coastal tribes knew of the seas fury and made there coastal dwellings moveable and/or able to be deserted because they knew the ocean was comming for them. but now we have cars and facebook so we dont have to follow the laws of nature, right.
dont live on the coast if u dont want to be flooded, and if u wanna live there that bad prepare for it ahead of time.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   




I dont necessarily agree. I do think premiums should be assessed according to risk, but not done away with altogether.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
Interesting point. People are all for making smokers pay more under Obamacare since it's risky behavior.
Of course, it's easy to want to keep it around because "but by the grace of God, there go I"
Plus there are a lot of major cities on the coast, so you'd be putting a lot of people out to dry(unintended pun... heh). I don't think it's probable that NY will just up and move until the sea levels rise and it's under 5ft of water.

I also disagree with living on the coast being a luxury. Maybe for some cases, but fishing and shipping require access to the sea, and those are necessary industries.


I think I didn't make myself clear. I guess if you need a shed for you fishing boat and that's your profession, you do need to have it. If you have a summer house on the Jersey shore, that's a different thing altogether.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 

It should of happened a long time ago. When in Florida as a member of Mensa I went to a party thrown by one of the members. Great party! When I noticed that high tide was only about 30yards from his back door I asked him about it. He said he had already rebuilt the house like six times. Each time from the money from Federal flood insurance he would make his house more expensive and he built it INTENTIONALLY to have it destroyed which was why it was so close to the water. He said he had become a millionaire off of it. I can not vouch for him telling the truth but I was really bothered at the time.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I dont necessarily agree. I do think premiums should be assessed according to risk, but not done away with altogether.


Well if you read the article, private companies don't usually do that. The premiums would be ridiculous. That's the answer.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I agree, and I see your point. I think those home owners usually have insurance because they know they are living in a risky location. Honestly, I don't know exactly how it works, but I was just addressing the idea of totally getting rid of it for everyone.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Number one priority is Insurance companies need to assign realistic risk factors. Also, local municipalities need to get tough on where developers are building. They (developers) should be held financially liable for the rebuilding or replacement of any infrastructure damaged by building in high risk areas. I believe in rescue services but I don't think I should have to continue to pay taxes for someone to rebuild in exactly the same way and place that got them into trouble.
edit on 06/02/2011 by grayeagle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
As a person with flood insurance, I feel that if you can afford a house on a watery area, you should be able to afford the insurance. I'm just skirting the line of the flood plane, I'm one house away on the dry side, but have insurance just in case.
I'm on a river. The levi's in my area have long since been blown up, the highest the river gets is cresting the edge, but I can't guarantee myself that the water will not rise higher at some point.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I dont necessarily agree. I do think premiums should be assessed according to risk, but not done away with altogether.


Well if you read the article, private companies don't usually do that. The premiums would be ridiculous. That's the answer.

I did read the article. And I dont agree that federal flood insurance needs to end. Not that tough to grasp.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
agreed

we really shouldn't rebuild on the water with rising oceans

just aint smart



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Dont you see? The only reason flood insurance is an economic loser is because of all those homes up in the hill that dont have flood insurance.

What the fed needs to do is mandate that every homeowner buy flood insurance. That way the overall burden is lessened.

If it'll work for healthcare, right?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Dont you see? The only reason flood insurance is an economic loser is because of all those homes up in the hill that dont have flood insurance.

What the fed needs to do is mandate that every homeowner buy flood insurance. That way the overall burden is lessened.

If it'll work for healthcare, right?


Red herring.

Dwellers of the coast will be flooded with a probability that is INFINITELY higher than dwellers of a hill.

But people can get staph infection in random places, hills or not.

Duh.





 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join