The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly about Hurricane Sandy

[Hilel Salomon]

Americans are the kindest, most helpful and most generous people on earth. A small minority don't have these qualities. In reading the news about Sandy, I was appalled at those who wanted to blame either Democrats or Republicans for the disaster, those who laughed and said that it served people right for living in the affected areas, and those who hoped that certain people died during the disaster. What ugly, distorted people these were.
Also, when these kind of disasters occur, the implements necessary to dig out, cut trees and salvage damaged properties are often sold out at the hardware stores. A few people begin to charge outrageous prices for their used chainsaws or for ordinary services. I'm down here in Columbia, SC and we weren't affected by the storm, but I know that my wood turning friends and neighbors in Virginia are helping those in need. In other words, they're acting like Americans.

[David Weaver]

It's the job of the news to keep your attention. If they feel like the best way to do that is to get people to say ugly things, they still have you on the hook as far as ratings go. I'd ignore it, you're just feeding the system if you don't.

A minority of folks has always done or said things like that, the difference now is that the internet makes it easier to catalong peoples' comments, and then they get boosted right up to the news. Along with bloggers who are just dying to figure out how to get people to their pages, political or otherwise. Same conclusion, don't feed it, don't repeat it.

We have gotten worse over the years about repeating things we don't like because we get so aggravated about them, but it just lends credibility to the method of distribution and by giving an ear to the people who say them. I know people of my grandparents age generally distanced themselves from such things instead of discussing them, but I fall into the same trap you did sometimes, I don't have as much discipline about it as my grandparents do.

You can bet there are plenty of stories about good people helping others in NY, stories that will never be aired.

[Jim Koepke]

In reading the news about Sandy, I was appalled at those who wanted to blame either Democrats or Republicans for the disaster, those who laughed and said that it served people right for living in the affected areas, and those who hoped that certain people died during the disaster. What ugly, distorted people these were.

I agree that they are many truly ugly distorted people who try to make themselves more important through the misery of others.

It is sad that so many have become polarized to the point of finding something so terrible as a way to promote their agenda.

jtk

[Matt Meiser]

Wow, I think you just summed up my thoughts on this election in 2 sentences. Both sides.

[Mike Cruz]

Hilel, this just supports the saying, "The more people I meet, the more I like my dog!". While there are an amazing number of good people around, I lost my confidence in poeple many years ago. While I don't believe that anyone "deserved" this by any means (whether it be hard times, injury, or death) for living in an effected area, there was a story on the news recently that boiled my blood: A community of about 250 (might have been 280) homes in Virginia has flooded 3 times in the last 10 years. The solution is to build a levy along the Potomac to protect this community. Apparently, it will be up for a vote to VIRGINIANS to approve the building of said levy! Why on God's Green Earth should the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia (oddly not a state, but a Commonwealth, but that is a discussion for another time) pay for a levy to protect these 250 homes? EITHER the community should pool the money, they should raise the money in a fundraiser (that way those who care can pay help pay for it), the company that developed the community, or the builder that built the community should pay for it. It isn't the responsibility of the people that live out of that community to pay for a levy via taxes to build a levy to protect a community that probably shouldn't have been built in the first place. Gladly, I don't live in Virginia...

While we weren't hit too hard by the storm right here where I live (thankfully), my heart goes out to all those who did...no matter where they live.

[Rod Sheridan]

Wow, I think you just summed up my thoughts on this election in 2 sentences. Both sides.

Unfortunately Matt, Canadian politics seems to be changing to a much more polarised type as well.

What ever happened to respecting and learning from different points of view?

I'm beggining to think that political parties of all types have outlived their usefullness as I can't imagine how any particular ideology could have the market cornered on good ideas.

Best wishes on your upcoming presidential election, hopefully the storm and your lives will have returned to normal before the big day.

Regards, Rod.

[Larry Edgerton]

I agree that they are many truly ugly distorted people who try to make themselves more important through the misery of others.

It is sad that so many have become polarized to the point of finding something so terrible as a way to promote their agenda.


jtk



On the other hand.......

If they did not make all the right noises the media would run them through the ringer for that. Remember Bush/Katrina?

Hard to say who to blame, the Media, the politicians, or the moronic general public that sit in front of the Box soaking up all this bologna.

This is why I do not have a TV.

Larry

[ray hampton]

Hilel, this just supports the saying, "The more people I meet, the more I like my dog!". While there are an amazing number of good people around, I lost my confidence in poeple many years ago. While I don't believe that anyone "deserved" this by any means (whether it be hard times, injury, or death) for living in an effected area, there was a story on the news recently that boiled my blood: A community of about 250 (might have been 280) homes in Virginia has flooded 3 times in the last 10 years. The solution is to build a levy along the Potomac to protect this community. Apparently, it will be up for a vote to VIRGINIANS to approve the building of said levy! Why on God's Green Earth should the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia (oddly not a state, but a Commonwealth, but that is a discussion for another time) pay for a levy to protect these 250 homes? EITHER the community should pool the money, they should raise the money in a fundraiser (that way those who care can pay help pay for it), the company that developed the community, or the builder that built the community should pay for it. It isn't the responsibility of the people that live out of that community to pay for a levy via taxes to build a levy to protect a community that probably shouldn't have been built in the first place. Gladly, I don't live in Virginia...

While we weren't hit too hard by the storm right here where I live (thankfully), my heart goes out to all those who did...no matter where they live.

do your point of view apply to the series of expressway that are build in you state that you may never use ? what about all of the lakes that you will not fish in ?

[Mike Cruz]

Again, Ray, I have no clue what you are saying/asking...never mind, though.

[Mike Cruz]

Rod, I'm waiting for the day that polititions run on their values and beliefs, rather than pointing the finger and trying to belittle their opponents. Just state your platform, and if the public likes it, let them vote for you. Slamming and slandering the other guy has neither dignity nor poise.

[John Coloccia]

Hilel, this just supports the saying, "The more people I meet, the more I like my dog!". While there are an amazing number of good people around, I lost my confidence in poeple many years ago. While I don't believe that anyone "deserved" this by any means (whether it be hard times, injury, or death) for living in an effected area, there was a story on the news recently that boiled my blood: A community of about 250 (might have been 280) homes in Virginia has flooded 3 times in the last 10 years. The solution is to build a levy along the Potomac to protect this community. Apparently, it will be up for a vote to VIRGINIANS to approve the building of said levy! Why on God's Green Earth should the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia (oddly not a state, but a Commonwealth, but that is a discussion for another time) pay for a levy to protect these 250 homes? EITHER the community should pool the money, they should raise the money in a fundraiser (that way those who care can pay help pay for it), the company that developed the community, or the builder that built the community should pay for it. It isn't the responsibility of the people that live out of that community to pay for a levy via taxes to build a levy to protect a community that probably shouldn't have been built in the first place. Gladly, I don't live in Virginia...

While we weren't hit too hard by the storm right here where I live (thankfully), my heart goes out to all those who did...no matter where they live.

Well, they're voting on it, Mike. If they don't want to pay for it, they won't. Sounds like things are working as they should, aren't they?

[Rod Sheridan]

Me too Mike...............Unfortunately the "sound bite" world we live in seems to discourage this.......Rod.

[Paul McGaha]

Well, personally, I like living in Virginia.

Virginia is for lovers.

PHM

[Jim Underwood]

I'm an equal opportunity blamer. It's both the fault of Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Party, and Green Party (but especially the Green Party)! And it's all George Barack Bush Obama's fault! :D

Hey on a serious note, I heard that the good news about the power outages was that it put an end to those annoying political phone calls. It would almost be worth it for the power to go out until the election if it would stop those darn calls!

[Matt Meiser]

I got two today.

[David Weaver]

7 years ago, we dumped the land line. 7 years ago, I got my last political phone call. I stopped watching the local news about the same time, for the same reason as is being discussed in this thread - they know what gets people to watch. And it's making the world and everyone else seem worse than it is.

[Bill Cunningham]

7 years ago, we dumped the land line. 7 years ago, I got my last political phone call. I stopped watching the local news about the same time, for the same reason as is being discussed in this thread - they know what gets people to watch. And it's making the world and everyone else seem worse than it is.

The media motto... If it bleeds it leads..

[Mike Cruz]

John, not if you asked me. In my mind, it shouldn't even go to a vote. This isn't the "peoples'" problem. It is a problem of 250 homes that probably shouldn't have been built. If anyone feels badly for these folks, they should open their wallets and contribute. BTW, I'm not unsympathetic to the owners fo the 250 homes. Please don't get me wrong. I don't think that it is "their fault" for living there. But it is their problem. Having the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia pay for this "mistake" by the developers/builders simply excuses them of their wrong doing. THEY should pay, not the people. Otherwise, guess what they will do in the next floodplain...:rolleyes:

Consequences for actions to those that act...not for those who happen to live in the same State...cleaning up the mess with their hard earned cash.

And BTW, my wife and I have contributed to aid for those affected by Sandy...we are not unsympathetic. But it was a CHOICE that we made, not mandated by a vote or by tax. What if a vote was made for everyone to contribute $1000 to aid victims of Sandy, and your State said "Yes" to the vote? Granted, I'm sure that isn't what would come of this issue in Virginia, but just because the public votes on it, doesn't make it right. Not all things should be voted on. If they took a vote on whether drinking and driving is okay, and the people voted YES, would that make it good? Nope...

Sorry, I'll get off my rant...

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Folks.....Please.......no politics.......it violates the TOSs.

[Mike Cruz]

Consider my hand slapped, Ken...sorry. I'll shut up now.:o

[Kevin W Johnson]

Why on God's Green Earth should the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia (oddly not a state, but a Commonwealth, but that is a discussion for another time) pay for a levy to protect these 250 homes? EITHER the community should pool the money, they should raise the money in a fundraiser (that way those who care can pay help pay for it), the company that developed the community, or the builder that built the community should pay for it. It isn't the responsibility of the people that live out of that community to pay for a levy via taxes to build a levy to protect a community that probably shouldn't have been built in the first place.

I agree, and my thoughts on this include New Orleans as well, and other high risk areas that should NOT be inhabited. You can bet if I see it on my ballot, I'll cast a vote against it.

Edit: Just checked and do not see that on the ballot in my precinct.

[Curt Harms]

Rod, I'm waiting for the day that polititions run on their values and beliefs, rather than pointing the finger and trying to belittle their opponents. Just state your platform, and if the public likes it, let them vote for you. Slamming and slandering the other guy has neither dignity nor poise.

I suspect, Mike, that if some politicians said what they REALLY thought, they'd go from the halls of power to "You want fries with that"? :eek: Or selling used cars :D. But the conduct of the vast majority of people, being correct and boring does not make a 'good story'.

[Rich Engelhardt]

Talk about ugly....
A friend of mine lives in NYC.
She ran out of gas & said gas is nearly impossible to get.

She saw someone selling gas for - $60.00 a gallon.

[Brian Elfert]

My uncle has a home right on the ocean in NJ that got 6 feet of water in it. I have a converted self-contained bus that comfortably hauls 8 people and my father and others are planning to go out to help with the house as soon he can get into the area. There is some question if government will even allow the homes to be rebuilt. My father hopes to go out as soon as government gives the okay to start repairs.

[Scott Shepherd]

Yeah, Maryland never puts stupid things up for vote, do they?

[Curt Harms]

My uncle has a home right on the ocean in NJ that got 6 feet of water in it. I have a converted self-contained bus that comfortably hauls 8 people and my father and others are planning to go out to help with the house as soon he can get into the area. There is some question if government will even allow the homes to be rebuilt. .....

Our local area had some houses built in creek flood plains prior to zoning being enacted. They'd flood every few years and got rebuilt/repaired. A few years ago local government bought 'em, tore 'em down and the land is now a park with few or no structures to be damaged due to flooding. Maybe houses on barrier islands and within feet of the ocean's edge should be treated similarly. it'll likely be cheaper in the long run.

[Jim Matthews]

It's the job of the news to keep your attention. If they feel like the best way to do that is to get people to say ugly things, they still have you on the hook as far as ratings go. I'd ignore it, you're just feeding the system if you don't. You can bet there are plenty of stories about good people helping others in NY, stories that will never be aired.

Amen, Reverend. I think the same amount of vile behavior has always gone on; we just hear about it now.
Any partisan trying to make points over suffering deserves two weeks piling sandbags and pumping bilge.

I live among the Massholes - it's a struggle to retain manners in the face of ignorance.
(It's not like OUR turn isn't just around the corner...)

[Tom Winship]

Reminds me of when I lived north of Houston, a guy I worked with had a home in a low lying area. He had flood insurance and after the water got about 2-3 feet deep, he would take his insurance check, rip out the carpet, cut off the sheet rock at the top of the water mark, and redo himself. Each time he profited handsomely and it happened 3 times that I knew of. Finally the flood insurance paid him a check for his house and told him that was the end. He was able to move into a lot nicer house than the one he had. (Of course, we all paid for it)

I think that at some point you have to be responsible for your actions.

[Jim Matthews]

To misquote Lyle Lovett, "Friendship is not so much about the things you value as shared hatred..."

[Jim Matthews]

We have a similar problem, right here in my neck of the woods.
There's a small inlet protected by a sandbar, with some precarious mobile homes perched in harm's way.

Every major storm washes away the road, and the seasonal residents insist that their taxes should cover rebuilding.
On a town budget just over 35 Million dollars, rebuilding the road will cost nearly $1.5 Million.

This lasts until the next storm arrives. When this starts happening in Florida - who pays?
Were I an insurance company, I would not consider coverage for property less than 20 feet above highest tide reasonable risk.

[Jason Roehl]

Were I an insurance company, I would just charge sufficient premiums to cover the expected losses, with appropriate breaks for disaster-resistant construction features...

[Jim Matthews]

In places like Florida, I'm not sure that's possible...

Given that so much of the Flood insurance is underwritten at a Federal level, it's a transfer of risk across State lines.

http://www.insuringflorida.org/articles/overview-of-florida-insurance-market.html
http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/

http://www.city-data.com/states/Florida-Topography.html

[Brian Elfert]

Insurance companies only write flood insurance because the federal government stands behind it. Nobody could afford flood insurance if insurance companies took all the risk as they do with normal policies.

It is becoming more and more common for government to just buy out homes in high risk areas instead of paying off flood insurance every few years.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Lets face it, there are way too many people building in areas that they shouldn't be allowed to and have flood coverage.

It should be that properties that have been flooded X number of times in X number of years are only allowed to rebuild if said owner is gonna pay the entire cost of rebuilding. And after rebuilding, they aren't eligible for any flood related damage coverage.

I'd also make some serious changes to building codes in high risk tornado areas too, like NOT allowing mobile homes. But that's a different discussion.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Insurance companies only write flood insurance because the federal government stands behind it. Nobody could afford flood insurance if insurance companies took all the risk as they do with normal policies.

It is becoming more and more common for government to just buy out homes in high risk areas instead of paying off flood insurance every few years.

Yeah, and you also can't get flood insurance if your locality doesn't participate in the Nation Flood Insurance Program either.

[Scott Shepherd]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres? After all, we know that area is a risk. There's a risk to living just about anywhere. You just have to pay for the additional risk in your rates. Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed.

I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

[John Coloccia]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres?

Maybe the UN should just force all of Japan to evacuate because it gets earthquakes and tsunamis. Maybe San Francisco should just be bought out and turned into a park....no one is allowed in, of course, because of the earthquake danger. Scott, lately I've just taken to ignoring people that want to micromanage and control everything about other people's lives. I tune it out. It literally starts sounding like "blah blah blah" after a while. I'm no fan of wasteful spending, believe me, but when we're going to spend $150+ million a year on the National Endowment for the Arts, which has brought us such great works as the Pi....I can't even say it because this is a family friendly forum....but that thing in a jar, surely we afford to help people out every so often when they're slammed with a natural disaster, even if they're living in a riskier area.

[Jim Matthews]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed. I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

If the insurance is entirely between the purchaser and purveyor, it's private.
When the insurance is born by the rest of us (without beach privileges) it's a transfer of wealth to people who already have money.

Certainly, you may build your house where you like.
Asking the rest of us to rebuild it is another matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204789304578089153245212398.html

[David Weaver]

If the insurance is entirely between the purchaser and purveyor, it's private.
When the insurance is born by the rest of us (without beach privileges) it's a transfer of wealth to people who already have money.

Certainly, you may build your house where you like.
Asking the rest of us to rebuild it is another matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204789304578089153245212398.html

I agree. In as much as a risk isn't insurable or it is and an individual decides that insurance is too expensive, the risk shouldn't be taken. Subsidizing the behavior with someone else's money just encourages making the situation worse and even more disproportional.

[David Weaver]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres? After all, we know that area is a risk. There's a risk to living just about anywhere. You just have to pay for the additional risk in your rates. Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed.

I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

Last time I checked, those were insurable properties, and didn't require a subsidy or the forced risk transfer to the rest of the population (san fran, tornado exposed homes, etc).

[Scott Shepherd]

Last time I checked, those were insurable properties, and didn't require a subsidy or the forced risk transfer to the rest of the population (san fran, tornado exposed homes, etc).

Funny, last time I checked, my premiums went into a pot that got used to pay for those homes. So I helped subsidize those homes built in "fire prone" areas or "tornado prone" areas. Doesn't matter to me, I paid for it both ways. So yes, I AM paying for those people to live in those places at affordable rates. Stop making me pay for those higher risks places and I'm fine with that.

The rest of the population already ARE paying for those houses to be replaced, via your insurance premiums. Anyone had your insurance company come in lately and say "great news, we're lowing your premiums"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Mel Fulks]

Actually there is an old mutual company in our ,and your city that does do that. They are quite careful about what they will insure,but they do at times waive premiums and even send out rebate checks.

[Brian Elfert]

Funny, last time I checked, my premiums went into a pot that got used to pay for those homes. So I helped subsidize those homes built in "fire prone" areas or "tornado prone" areas. Doesn't matter to me, I paid for it both ways. So yes, I AM paying for those people to live in those places at affordable rates. Stop making me pay for those higher risks places and I'm fine with that.

The rest of the population already ARE paying for those houses to be replaced, via your insurance premiums. Anyone had your insurance company come in lately and say "great news, we're lowing your premiums"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Those with homes in high risk areas do pay more due to the higher risk of a claim. Ask someone in Florida how much homeowner's insurance costs there. Hurricane coverage is generally very expensive with deductibles into the thousands or tens of thousands.

We do all pay for flood insurance claims since the federal government backs flood insurance.

[Scott Shepherd]

Those with homes in high risk areas do pay more due to the higher risk of a claim. Ask someone in Florida how much homeowner's insurance costs there. Hurricane coverage is generally very expensive with deductibles into the thousands or tens of thousands.

We do all pay for flood insurance claims since the federal government backs flood insurance.

I know that do pay more in those areas. My point is that the pool of money insurance companies gather from all of us are used to pay ALL claims. So we ALL pay for ALL damage, storm, fire, flood, etc. They don't say "Well, some people in California had a fire, so we can only use money collected by people that pay in California". They use money from everyone to pay those claims.

[Kevin W Johnson]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres? After all, we know that area is a risk. There's a risk to living just about anywhere. You just have to pay for the additional risk in your rates. Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed.

I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

Who said we shouldn't?

I simply stated we need changes in building codes for high risk tornado areas. Mobile homes being the one thing that shouldn't be allowed. Lets face it, mobile homes aren't homes are even close to being able to withstand tornado's, and the building codes need to be changed for stick built homes in those areas. That way when something is destroyed and rebuilt, the chances of be destroyed again are much less.

ALL of us that pay homeowners insurance are subject too HIGHER rates everytime these kinds of things happen. We shouldn't have to keep paying time after time to rebuild houses in the same spot. Build it right for the location, or don't build it. People in those areas do pay a little more for insurance, but we ALL pay higher rates because of those people as well.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Were I an insurance company, I would just charge sufficient premiums to cover the expected losses, with appropriate breaks for disaster-resistant construction features...

Yep. And I'm bettin' that most larger insurance companies can just about narrow down homes by address and the rate total loss in these high risk areas. And while people in these areas pay higher premiums, the premiums in no way reflect the cost to rebuild.

It's way past time for the people that insist on living in the highest risk areas to start bearing the brunt of the cost. Premiums should match those areas better, and people either agree to pay them, assume their own risk, or we leave those areas uninhabited. Yes I understand the premise of insurance being spread among us all. But that doesn't mean we should be paying to replace a house every 2-20 years.

[Scott Shepherd]

Yes I understand the premise of insurance being spread among us all. But that doesn't mean we should be paying to replace a house every 2-20 years.

I think you won't find a much more weather violent place in the US than the coasts of Florida. I can't recall a single story about having to rebuild the same houses over and over and over. Long Island hasn't had to rebuild all those home over and over and over. New Jersey hasn't built those home over and over and over.

The facts just aren't on your side. What you're suggesting might happen in some rare cases, but it's by no means the rule.

[David Weaver]

Funny, last time I checked, my premiums went into a pot that got used to pay for those homes. So I helped subsidize those homes built in "fire prone" areas or "tornado prone" areas. Doesn't matter to me, I paid for it both ways. So yes, I AM paying for those people to live in those places at affordable rates. Stop making me pay for those higher risks places and I'm fine with that.

The rest of the population already ARE paying for those houses to be replaced, via your insurance premiums. Anyone had your insurance company come in lately and say "great news, we're lowing your premiums"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

You paid a state rate for the houses built in tornado areas? Unless a state limits rates (as florida either did or wanted to do, which caused insurers to exit the market), you pay a premium that is representative of the risks in your area. You pay for the houses in midwest no more so than you pay for their groceries at wal mart because both you and they buy groceries from the same corporation.

Their premiums are rated for their risks, and yours are rated for your risks. The assets are pooled, but rates don't generally increase for you due to fairly homogeneous risks like tornadoes, they increase when something like sandy occurs, or when something like the last mississippi river flood occurs.

Insurance is regulated by state, not federally unless it is a risk that is not considered insurable without a subsidy. Tornados are not in that category, you do not subsidize anyone who is exposed to tornado risk.

[Scott Shepherd]

You paid a state rate for the houses built in tornado areas? Unless a state limits rates (as florida either did or wanted to do, which caused insurers to exit the market), you pay a premium that is representative of the risks in your area. You pay for the houses in midwest no more so than you pay for their groceries at wal mart because both you and they buy groceries from the same corporation.

Their premiums are rated for their risks, and yours are rated for your risks. The assets are pooled, but rates don't generally increase for you due to fairly homogeneous risks like tornadoes, they increase when something like sandy occurs, or when something like the last mississippi river flood occurs.

Insurance is regulated by state, not federally unless it is a risk that is not considered insurable without a subsidy. Tornados are not in that category, you do not subsidize anyone who is exposed to tornado risk.

So you'd like me to believe that if I have Allstate insurance in North Carolina, and California takes a beating by some weather event and Allstate has huge payouts, then not a penny I paid into my insurance will go to pay those payouts? I don't believe it. If that were the case, they'd go bankrupt in those trouble states.

The payouts to those people comes from their bottom line, all of which I contributed towards. If they have higher payouts nationwide, then you'll see higher rates, nationwide.

[Kevin W Johnson]

. What you're suggesting might happen in some rare cases, but it's by no means the rule.

Not that rare at all. Two hurricanes hit the exact same spot of North Carolina in the same summer of 1996 alone. The 55 year map from 1950-2005 shows many hurricanes making landfall in very close proximity of each other. With the size of a hurricane, they need not hit the exact same spot each time to inflict damage to the same homes over and over.


It's a matter of high risk areas need to change building codes so that when structures are damaged beyond repair, the chances of the replacement structure being wiped out are greatly reduced. It would be a win-win for the proprty owners, and the rest of us that have our home-owners insurance rates increase on a continual basis due to rebuilding these areas.

The really sad part, is that many times we pay twice or atleast in more than one way in many of these hurricanes. Not only do the rest of us pay higher HO insurance, but we also pay again through taxes, since the National Flood Insurance Program is federally backed. The NFIP doesn't take in enough in premiums to cover it's payout, leaving taxpayers on the hook. The program only has about $3 billion more that it can "borrow" from the treasury before it hits its $20 billion cap and has to have Congress raise that cap. And that will certainly happen with the damage left behind from Sandy.

Nearly all of these coastal localities take in enormous amounts of tourist dollars, yet it seems very little is ever saved in "rainy day" funds to help with rebuilding costs. They all count on the feds to bail them out.

[David Weaver]

So you'd like me to believe that if I have Allstate insurance in North Carolina, and California takes a beating by some weather event and Allstate has huge payouts, then not a penny I paid into my insurance will go to pay those payouts? I don't believe it. If that were the case, they'd go bankrupt in those trouble states.

The payouts to those people comes from their bottom line, all of which I contributed towards. If they have higher payouts nationwide, then you'll see higher rates, nationwide.

A subsidy in insurance only occurs when the insurer collects premiums and in the long run they are collecting more from someone else than expected claims plus expenses and profits to pay for someone where they are collecting less than expected claims plus expenses and profits. I'm not aware of anywhere that's the case for tornadoes or earthquakes. I don't know much about earthquake coverage, but what I do know is the only time I've heard of general rate increases across the board is after hurricanes, and perhaps mississippi flooding (and i'm not sure about the latter).

You subsidize flood coverage, I don't know where, if it's just from general taxes or if your premiums are loaded for it, but I seriously doubt you subsidize tornado coverage or earthquake coverage.

What you explained is insurance in general, you're not exempt from tornadoes, hail damage or wind damage in virginia, so to the extent that dollars pooled might pay for tornado or hail damage, they could very well be someone else's dollars paying your claims. If there is an increased risk that someone in the midwest will incur those losses, then they will have already paid higher premiums because of it. Either you're misunderstanding what a subsidy is in insurance, or you're suffering from the same disease that most people do - the thought that they receive no value from insurance if they can't remember having a claim (go without insurance if you think a period of coverage has no value to you).

The general function of risk pooling with premiums paid for expected claims is no the same thing as paying disaster costs for otherwise uninsurable risks.

[Jim Matthews]

So you'd like me to believe that if I have Allstate insurance in North Carolina, and California takes a beating by some weather event and Allstate has huge payouts, then not a penny I paid into my insurance will go to pay those payouts? I don't believe it. If that were the case, they'd go bankrupt in those trouble states.

The payouts to those people comes from their bottom line, all of which I contributed towards. If they have higher payouts nationwide, then you'll see higher rates, nationwide.

To the point - flood insurance is underwritten by the FEMA arm of the Federal government.
It's funded by discretionary spending. It was originally written to protect home owners
along our waterways like the Mississippi where flooding was a catastrophic rarity.

Few of the homeowners in those locales had any alternative for insurance.

It's now extended to beachfront property, particularly along the East Coast.
Private insurors have continued to write expensive policies for such homes,
with the clear indication that any flood damage will be passed to FEMA.

That both inflates property values and encourages unsound building practices.

Were private parties bearing the full brunt of premiums, fewer of these homes would remain so close to the waterline.

We're comparing two very different risk pools here; one that is covered by spread risk and one that has a familiar "too big to fail" imprint.
I, for one, am tired of carrying risk for people engaged in what would appear to be engaged in reckless behavior that I can't enjoy myself.

Given that so many of these communities have restricted access, I'm paying for their exclusivity.
That's a transfer of wealth, by any measure.

[Brian Elfert]

My uncle's house is on the NJ shore, was damaged by hurricane Sandy, and is covered by flood insurance. His house took on 6 feet of water, but was not swept off the foundation or anything like that. He has been told by government if the cost to rehab exceeds 50% of the value he will be required to raze the home and rebuild on piers.

[Jim Matthews]

How is he holding up?

It's pretty cold there, today.
I'm nearly 15 miles from the ocean, and it's a bitter wind blowing through...

[Brian Elfert]

How is he holding up?

It's pretty cold there, today.
I'm nearly 15 miles from the ocean, and it's a bitter wind blowing through...

I haven't heard a thing since I heard about razing the house if the repairs are more than 50%. I'm getting the information second or third hand from my father who has been busy.