People who live through a natural disaster (earthquake, hurricane) and have no insurance should not receive government help.
Submitted 196 days ago by TheSheep
 Favorite
Embed
Options
|
|
Loading...
| Results | |
|---|---|
|
Agree
Disagree
|
|
| Strongly Disagree | |
|
|
| 100 votes 29% | |
| Disagree | |
|
|
| 117 votes 34% | |
| Undecided | |
|
|
| 52 votes 15% | |
| Agree | |
|
|
| 42 votes 12% | |
| Strongly Agree | |
|
|
| 31 votes 9% | |
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 196 days ago by deleted user ReplyWhat the hell else is the government for?
Didn't do too good in Civics class did you?
Nope, almost failed it. I needed that class to graduate, too ... it was tragic.
Perhaps I should brush up on that? Or maybe next time I take a class like that not have an instructor that gives us crossword puzzles as the only means by which to learn? Geez.
Anyway ... excuses.
Depends on what classes you take...there is a legitimate argument to be made that government is for resource distribution. Ultimately, it is our government to make what we want out of it.
Not according to the US Constitution. Maybe according to your State's constitution.
Um....under most insurance policies I have ever known, "Acts of God" are not covered anyway. Some areas are basically uninsurable too, so I would say, if the government wont spend OUR taxes on flood defences etc, then they should bloody well help in the aftermath. They are so keen to hang onto the money, they forget we gave it to them in the first place.
Some areas I have lived in have special riders for certain disasters, such as flood or hurricane if you live in one of those zones. I also know of areas that once they have been hit, it is impossible to buy insurance as the premiums are so high.
Yes, that problem has cropped up more here, it's pretty much confined to flooding, other extremes of weather and natural disasters not being much of a problem. A lot of those people living on flood plains have done so for generations with no problems, it's a new threat that people have little warning about.
Of course now everyone near a river is more clued up to check, but there is pretty much nothing that can be done to protect your home.
Only the liberals--the conservatives believe it is wrong. so they wouldn't accept it anyway.
Why do the people stay in or keep returning to areas that are always flooding or are always being hit by big storms? They loose their stuff every one or two years but the keep on coming back. I don't blame the gov for not wanting to give the folks rewards for being stupid.
So, if you get flooded out or hit by big ol' storm, or have an earthquake or a volcano or a terrorist attack, we won't bail you out. No problem.
Since you don't live in America, you don't have to worry about losing your home to a medical bankruptcy, like 700,000 a year of us do.
You are so full of crap! Where do you live, in a cave? I am insured. I have to be or I couldn't afford to live here. If I was living in the US, (which I will be when I retire) I will be insured there too. I live away from the coast or any major water ways. I live in an area above the sea level. In a lot of cases it is hard to do here, but in the US, the choices are so many, it is pure stupidity to keep returning to a bad area and NOT BEING INSURED! But that's okay. The they can spend their money on their pleasures instead of their needs. The liberals will take care of them.
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1
I found the part about 75.7% being insured with health coverage at the onset of their illness interesting.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 196 days ago by deleted user ReplyOr any return on their tax dollars.
Do you really think those folks are paying taxes? You do live in a cave.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I'll bet you are on welfare too.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 195 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted by Hauli .
[1 point] 195 days ago byIf you can't take care of them, you shouldn't have them.
And what do you do when you had insurance and it was disallowed on a technicality?http://www.katrinalawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/cl.pdf
Many homeowners in Katrina had flood insurance, and many insurance companies refused payment. One excuse I remember was that "the damage was not caused by the hurricane, but rather the levee breaking". At which point shouldn't the government step in, as they were responsible for building and maintaining the levee system?
I think the government should step in to help save their lives, but not necessarily rebuild them. Some disasters are so unpredictable that the victims are blameless, just unlucky. But if you live on an active volcano, in a flood plain, or on a major earthquake fault, perhaps you should expect less long-term help.
Here is an interesting question; there is a major fault in the New Madrid seismic zone that hasn't gone off in 200 years (last time it did it was an 8 on the richter scale, and was felt in New York and Washington DC). It will go off again. Should those people receive help when it does? I always found it interesting that people don't think CA earthquake victims should receive aid for fault lines that go off relatively infrequently, and yet we dig the midwest out of tornadoes, Fla out of hurricane damage, and the NE out of blizzards on a yearly basis.
The problem I have with the idea that we don't help rebuild is twofold: one, there is not one among us that DOESN'T live in some kind of recurring disaster zone; blizzards in the NE, drought, fires, earthquakes in the west, tornadoes, earthquakes in the midwest, hurricanes in the SE.
The other is that we are part of a growth oriented economy. Building back into our infrastructure only improves the economy for everyone; that is basic economics. So why not?
Oh, and don't forget, when New Madrid (pronounced MAD rid) went off, the Mississippi flowed backwards for three days. Should the people upstream be refused aid? What about all the Mississippi flood plain victims who were aided year after year after year when I was a young adult? What about the victims of the various epidemics? When the Southwest had an epidemic of hantavirus due to persistent drought? When the Southwest had an epidemic of plague due to persistent drought? When D.C. and Philadelphia once again start having malaria and yellow fever epidemics due to climate changes? Should we deny them aid as well? Because we all can catch those problems.
And let us not forget volcanoes. How about if Hood or Ranier or Lassen or Shasta go off? Ignore the victims?
I think thats their problem if they dont have insurance. as a homeowner it should be your responsibility to do what it takes to protect your investment. and if that includes buying insurance then...by all means...
I also know a lot of mortgage companies will require you to carry insurance if you are living in a problem area, which I think is a good idea.
It is an excellent idea. I believe all mortgage companies require it here as a matter of course. Just for bricks and mortar. Still doesn't cover for floods outside of an ara that ever suffered it though.
It should be noted somewhere here that many of the victims of hurricane Katrina HAD flood insurance which was disallowed. Some victims were told that it was because the hurricane didn't cause the damage, the breaking of the levees did. Since the levees are under government control...?
Exactly, they should compensate people for their failure to maintain effective flood defences!