Natural disaster relief

Originally posted by whodey
At what point should a personal loss be reimbursed by the American tax payer?

Put another way, how many homes/cars/etc should be lost before the government bails them out?

What you are describing is the government (we the people) becoming the underwriter of all uninsurable interests., a virtual Lloyds of London, without any underwriting experience, or any way of calculating the risks.

That is precisely why we are trillions of dollars in debt right now.

Originally posted by moon1969
You clearly have no understanding. Insurance companies generally pay close to adequate for a typical individual claim in normal circumstances. Quite the opposite, in natural disasters affecting hundreds or thousands or millions of people in a region, the private insurance companies revise their payouts and only pay pennies on the dollar. I have reviewed ...[text shortened]... ounty. Citizens in all States pay a little to the federal government to have FEMA as insurance.

Citizens pay little to have FEMA? How much is a little? All money flowing out of Washington either comes from the taxpayer or is debt causing the value of the money of the tax payer to become inflated.

The larger the destruction the less private insurance is able to cover. That is a simple reality. Fortunately for us, the government has an eternal supply of fiat money to cover the cost, so why have private insurance?

Originally posted by vivify
There should be no limit, because that's the point of having a government, and paying taxes to it. Of course, there should be a definition of what qualifies as a disaster. Common occurances like fires shouldn't count; for that, there should be homeowners insurance. The same should apply, if you own a home near an area where hurricanes, tornados or floods ar ...[text shortened]... f disasters, without forsaking other aspects of the country that need government resources.

Let's go out on a limb and speculate that you become wealthy beyond all expectations. Would you take on underwriting all those risks?

Originally posted by whodey
I have personally been "screwed" as well by private insurance. Your point is? Is this a compelling argument to simply do away with private insurance altogether?

So I guess FEMA would rather have the tax payer pay for what the insurance company should have payed for by loaning her money, but I disagree. In fact, the only response government has toward such things as rising tuition is to make loans more affodable. You call that compassion? LOL.

No one except extremists are suggesting to get rid of private insurance.

She paid federal tax dollars to fund FEMA -- thus an insurance premium for times of a natural disaster. It is not that complicated. We all pay a little in case we need it. Plus, there is restoring and rebuild of public infrastrucutre and clearing of debris. We all pay a little every year in case we need it. Not that complicated, and very smart and sensible.

Unless, you were in a naturaly disaster, I know you were not as screwed as much by private insurance as people with private insurance in natural disasters.

Originally posted by normbenign
What you are describing is the government (we the people) becoming the underwriter of all uninsurable interests., a virtual Lloyds of London, without any underwriting experience, or any way of calculating the risks.

That is precisely why we are trillions of dollars in debt right now.

I'm simply describing the way it is now. The American government is there to insure corporate America, domestic America, and those abroad.

Originally posted by normbenign
What you are describing is the government (we the people) becoming the underwriter of all uninsurable interests., a virtual Lloyds of London, without any underwriting experience, or any way of calculating the risks.

That is precisely why we are trillions of dollars in debt right now.

A red herring. The FEMA oayout is miniscule. Also, learn a little bit about underwriting risk. This is spread out over millions of people, millions of taxpayers, and a huge geographic area. Get a clue.

Originally posted by moon1969
No one except extremists are suggesting to get rid of private insurance.

.

Those on the left, including you, wish to get rid of private health care insurance. Does this mean you are an extremist?

Originally posted by moon1969
.

She paid federal tax dollars to fund FEMA -- thus an insurance premium for times of a natural disaster. It is not that complicated. We all pay a little in case we need it. Plsu, there is restoring and rebuild of public infrastrucutre and clearing of debris. We all pay a little every year in case we need it. Not that complicated, and very smart and se ...[text shortened]... t as screwed as much by private insurance as people with private insurance in natural disasters.[/b]

Lots of people obtain things from government, i.e. the taxpayer, that costs them little to nothing. So? I'm asking what is the cost of FEMA?

Originally posted by KingDavid403
We shouldn't help anyone ever. Let them rot. We have enough to worry about just taking care of ourselves.

In insurance, the term indemnify means making someone equal after the protected event to where the insured was before the event.

You'll have to accept that some risks are deemed uninsurable (for more detail take a course on insurance).

Government (we the people) may choose to offer a helping hand to people in a disaster, but not necessarily indemnify them. For example, their uninsured home is destroyed by a twister, a total loss of $500K. Perhaps the taxpayers give them temporary shelter in a FEMA trailer, not where they were, but temporary assistance to get back on their feet.

The notion that governments can remove, or reverse all risks is hopeful, but fanciful.

Originally posted by whodey
Citizens pay little to have FEMA? How much is a little? All money flowing out of Washington either comes from the taxpayer or is debt causing the value of the money of the tax payer to become inflated.

The larger the destruction the less private insurance is able to cover. That is a simple reality. Fortunately for us, the government has an eternal supply of fiat money to cover the cost, so why have private insurance?

I am glad you are in the fringe minority. I have seen people like you do a complete turnaround after going through years of a rebuild after a natural disater. People originally with decent incomes, nice homes, reliable vehicles, savings, kids, and then in which every material possession in their life is destroyed, and with all of their neighbors suffering the same consequence. Living in temporary homes with no immediate transportation, etc. They paid a little to fund FEMA. It is miniscule and not that much especially compared to social security, medicare, military expenditures, etc. We as a society, (and with you in the fringe freak minority thank goodness), have decided we want to pitch in a little to have FEMA in case we need it in our town. Not that complicated. But smart.

Originally posted by whodey
Who decides which crisis is more dire?

Let me guess, when it happens on a large scale then its considered dire, but if not then screw the other guy.

I propose that the reason government cares about the mob and not the individual is twofold. They wish to secure votes, and they wish to curb any economic down turn so that more money keeps flowing into the ...[text shortened]... he individual, especially if private insurance is of no or little use to the person in question.

I didn't hear all the wringing of hands when a twister F4 variety stayed on the ground in Alabama from west of Tuscaloosa into Georgia, compared to the noise over Sandy, or Katrina.

The difference is clearly in the makeup of the constituencies politically.

Originally posted by whodey
Those on the left, including you, wish to get rid of private health care insurance. Does this mean you are an extremist?

The healhcare reform is the same as what was proprosed by the Hertiage Foundation and implemented in Massachusetts, and retains private health insurance. Indeed, the same expert used to devixe Romneycare also devise Obamacare. While the inefficiencies and transactional costs and unecessary overhead are horrible with private health insurance, I and most Democrats are definitely not wishing to get rid of private health insurance.

Originally posted by normbenign
I didn't hear all the wringing of hands when a twister F4 variety stayed on the ground in Alabama from west of Tuscaloosa into Georgia, compared to the noise over Sandy, or Katrina.

The difference is clearly in the makeup of the constituencies politically.

You must ocassionally go live under a rock. That tornado and its aftermath were in the news for weeks. And the President visited onsite. Plus, you completely ignore or ignorantly do not realize that the tornado damage while horrible and devastating and causing billions $ damage, and in which justly received FEMA assistance (and still is) is an order of magnitued less than the sheer widespread depth of the damage caused by Sandy and Katrina, expedically in heavily populated areas. Just look at the $.

Originally posted by moon1969
You give a weird and distorted characterization. As someone who has been through mutliple natural disaster rebuilds, I can tell you that private insurance is incredibly inadequate. As a common example, the last hurricane to demolish Houston did $30,000 damage to my secretary's house and Allstate estimated the damage at $5,000. I reviewed the estimate an ...[text shortened]... ivate insurance when no private entity exists that can adequately help. I have witnessed it.

"But in regional disasters such as with a natural disaster, the insurance companies clamp down on payouts to survive."

That is precisely why flood insurance is not underwritten by insurance companies. In regions like the Gulf coast, and Atlantic coast, don't be surprised to see exclusions involving hurricanes, especially south of Cape Hatteras.

Texas has done remarkable things engineeringwise to make places like Galveston less vulnerable to Hurricanes, but a storm approaching from a slightly different angle can wreck the best defensive systems.

You ought to check out the Weather Channel series, "It Hasn't Happened Yet, but it could Tomorrow". It speculates on possible disasters that are totally possible, but inadequately defended against or prepared for. See my post on indemnification. Government can't be underwriter of last resort. It can and should offer help to those harmed, but not indemnification.

Originally posted by moon1969
You must ocassionally go live under a rock. That tornado and its aftermath were in the news for weeks. And the President visited onsite. Plus, you completely ignore or ignorantly do not realize that the tornado damage while horrible and devastating and causing billions $ damage, and in which justly received FEMA assistance (and still is) is an order of m ...[text shortened]... damage caused by Sandy and Katrina, expedically in heavily populated areas. Just look at the $.

I don't deny the coverage and help. The intensity and length differed considerably.