national catastrophic insurance

DosEquis · 01-25-2008, 02:03 AM

Ok, what the fuck.

Rudy, Mitt, and who knows which other candidates support a national catastrophic insurance plan... how in the hell is that any different than a national health insurance plan? When a major disaster hits, it is at least a billion dollars in damage. Katrina has probably been around 100 billion, earthquakes, flooding in the midwest, and otherwise.

Why are these guys in favor of the government buying people new homes for living in a flood plain, living in a hurricane risk area, mud slide risk area, wild fires, etc? The current money passed for this kind of thing, per john mccain in the debate, was 200 billion dollars. The health insurance plans the democrats talk of allegedly cost about the same.

These people choose to live there, the other people do not choose to fall victim to cancer. How is this not hypocritical? What makes one justifiable and the other not?

Simius · 01-25-2008, 02:17 AM

It is all about personal responsibility. If a hurricane takes out your house, how is that your fault? You can't control the weather.

But if you get the flu, fuck off for being irresponsible.

/thread

Edit: Sorry, I guess I am in a trolly mood.

DosEquis · 01-25-2008, 02:27 AM

Originally Posted by Simius

It is all about personal responsibility. If a hurricane takes out your house, how is that your fault? You can't control the weather.

But if you get the flu, fuck off for being irresponsible.

/thread

Edit: Sorry, I guess I am in a trolly mood.

You built it there with history showing hurricanes are going to show up. Not only did you build it there, you built it in a fashion that allowed it to get blown away and not with stand the elements. You wonder why a regular insurance company won't cover you... HMMMM Thats a mystery!

Simius · 01-25-2008, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

You built it there with history showing hurricanes are going to show up. Not only did you build it there, you built it in a fashion that allowed it to get blown away and not with stand the elements. You wonder why a regular insurance company won't cover you... HMMMM Thats a mystery!

Yeah, in case it wasn't clear, my post was pure sarcasm.

I didn't see the debate so I don't know the details... but if it isn't subsidized insurance (and the gov breaks even or profits from it) then I think it is a good idea. If the government subsidizes the insurance... or just flat out covers everyone without a premium... then I don't support it because it just forces everyone else to pay for select people to live in high risk areas. In effect it would encourage more people to live in those areas because they don't have to burden the full cost of the risks involved in living in such areas.

Scrum · 01-25-2008, 10:00 AM

I can't wait to hear one of their supporters defend this clearly socialist policy.

kinggovernor · 01-25-2008, 10:22 AM

I agree. There is no need for the federal government to get involved.

7960 · 01-25-2008, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Why are these guys in favor of the government buying people new homes........

.....because it'll get them more votes than it'll lose them.

7960 · 01-25-2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I can't wait to hear one of their supporters defend this clearly socialist policy.

I am for state/federal insurance in a few cases/ways:

-homeowners pay a premium
-if they use it, they get the money but they forfeit the house/land and can't rebuild. Basically they take the settlement and go away.

They did this on Cape Cod a while ago (they might still, I'm not sure)...the dunes/beach is eroding and they offered people insurance against property loss. So the people buy it, big storm comes, 1/3 of their property is washed away and makes the house unsafe so it's condemned and ripped down. Now the people have a choice....

(a) take the insurance money and leave, or
(b) rebuild on a 'safe' part of the property out-of-pocket.

I say I'm for state/federal insurance because private insurance can't force you to leave your property. When you leave it's never buyable or buildable again...essentially it goes back to the state.

Other than that, if you choose to live in a (hurricane/earthquake/mudslide/locust/fire ant/flood/etc) area, don't ask me to pay when you lose it all.

WickedLou9 · 01-25-2008, 11:13 AM

This is one case where I agree. If they want a national insurance plan, it should be one that you have to buy into. Not 100% funded by taxpayers.

Simius · 01-25-2008, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

I am for state/federal insurance in a few cases/ways:

-homeowners pay a premium
-if they use it, they get the money but they forfeit the house/land and can't rebuild. Basically they take the settlement and go away.

They did this on Cape Cod a while ago (they might still, I'm not sure)...the dunes/beach is eroding and they offered people insurance against property loss. So the people buy it, big storm comes, 1/3 of their property is washed away and makes the house unsafe so it's condemned and ripped down. Now the people have a choice....

(a) take the insurance money and leave, or
(b) rebuild on a 'safe' part of the property out-of-pocket.

I say I'm for state/federal insurance because private insurance can't force you to leave your property. When you leave it's never buyable or buildable again...essentially it goes back to the state.

Other than that, if you choose to live in a (hurricane/earthquake/mudslide/locust/fire ant/flood/etc) area, don't ask me to pay when you lose it all.

Nice. That is actually pretty smart.

hsmith · 01-25-2008, 12:24 PM

Want to live on a flood plain? Want to live in Tornado Alley? Want to live in FL?

Well you need to grasp the risk that your house could be destroyed. You will pay a premium for insurance and I will not bail you out. I don't choose to live there because of those reasons, so if you want to, take the risk.

End of story. Just like rebuilding New Orleans. It is on a flood plain, what do you really think will happen?

7960 · 01-25-2008, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

End of story. Just like rebuilding New Orleans. It is on a flood plain, what do you really think will happen?

I was in NO 2 years ago. There are whole BIG sections that the govt isn't allowing to be rebuilt, supposedly ever.

kinggovernor · 01-25-2008, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

Want to live on a flood plain? Want to live in Tornado Alley? Want to live in FL?

Well you need to grasp the risk that your house could be destroyed. You will pay a premium for insurance and I will not bail you out. I don't choose to live there because of those reasons, so if you want to, take the risk.

End of story. Just like rebuilding New Orleans. It is on a flood plain, what do you really think will happen?

everyone knocks on Buffalo for the snow, but guess what it doesn't knock your house over. So I don't know why would should have to subsidize people that live in areas where the weather will destroy your house/city.

Ironduke · 01-27-2008, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Simius

It is all about personal responsibility. If a hurricane takes out your house, how is that your fault? You can't control the weather.

But if you get the flu, fuck off for being irresponsible.

/thread

Edit: Sorry, I guess I am in a trolly mood.

I don't like the idea of people perennially building and rebuilding homes in flood plains and hurricane areas. I don't think taxpayers should be stuck with the bill because people can't build in non-flood prone areas or build homes out of materials that won't see them destroyed in a hurricane. I say if you want to insure your home against a hurricane, build your home out of concrete or something.

Simius · 01-27-2008, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I don't like the idea of people perennially building and rebuilding homes in flood plains and hurricane areas. I don't think taxpayers should be stuck with the bill because people can't build in non-flood prone areas or build homes out of materials that won't see them destroyed in a hurricane. I say if you want your home to insure against a hurricane, build your home out of concrete or something.

DosEquis · 01-27-2008, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ironduke

I don't like the idea of people perennially building and rebuilding homes in flood plains and hurricane areas. I don't think taxpayers should be stuck with the bill because people can't build in non-flood prone areas or build homes out of materials that won't see them destroyed in a hurricane. I say if you want to insure your home against a hurricane, build your home out of concrete or something.

That may be, but both parties continue to pass legislation and assign money to disaster 'recovery' funds. Now we have republican candidates talking of a national insurance plan. Doesn't make sense to me...especially since they are allegedly against anything govt. related like that.

People will cite tradition, history, and how it has been their home for years or decades. They will put their house back up and in 5 years there will be another devistating flood or hurricane.

Ironduke · 01-27-2008, 04:47 AM

That may be, but both parties continue to pass legislation and assign money to disaster 'recovery' funds. Now we have republican candidates talking of a national insurance plan. Doesn't make sense to me...especially since they are allegedly against anything govt. related like that.

AFAIK, John McCain isn't. Good enough for me.

Scrum · 01-27-2008, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ironduke

AFAIK, John McCain isn't. Good enough for me.

Give him some time and i'm sure he will support it.

6SpeedTA95 · 01-27-2008, 01:10 PM

I think it is totally hypocritical of them. This is basically John Kerry's healthcare plan for other types of insurance...a plan widely criticized by many. A plan that in my opinion was pretty good. I think you could be for a healthcare initiative but against this insurance and not be hypocritical. Maybe thats because its how I feel but let me elaborate just a bit....

If I buy a house in a flood plain and then refuse to buy insurance who's fault is that? If I want a house in a flood plain and I buy it knowing I can't afford insurance who's fault is that? If I live on the coast and spend a million or two on a beachfront home and can't afford insurance, who's fault is that? That is not the government's fault or your fault it is MY fault for choosing not to insure my property.

If on the other hand I were to fall ill, that is not usually something the individual can control. My dad couldn't opt out of his brain tumor. My grandfather couldn't opt out of his prostate/bone cancer.

The constitution says we have the right to LIFE, liberty and property (pursuit of happiness as many say now). First on the list is LIFE. I have a hard time not supporting a catastrophic health insurance plan. I do NOT have a hard time telling people who choose not to buy insurance to pay for their shit if it gets flooded, burned, blown away.

RMNIXON · 01-27-2008, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ironduke

AFAIK, John McCain isn't. Good enough for me.

National disaster insurance is a big issue in Florida, but I am not sure who is for what just yet? Something to watch between now and Tuesday!