On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 11:32:07 -0500, "JerryL"
wrote:

After Hurricane Wilma, I sustained a minimum of $14800 damage to my barrel
tile roof. After my deductible, the insurance company gave me 11535 (3265.00
deductible). My only income is from Social Security so I applied to FEMA to
help me pay the deductible. I read in the papers and heard on TV how they
were giving away $2000 debit cards to everyone in Louisiana and Mississippi

I think those people lost their entire homes, not just damage to their
roofs.

among other goodies. I understand that a lot of these people are on Welfare
but I also understand their welfare checks are larger than my Social
Security check which I have to live on.

Those with dependant children you may well be right.

At first FEMA referred me to SBA
for a low interest loan. I appealed and explained that there was no way I
could repay a loan on my income. They then sent an inspector down to verify
my damage. A month later they determined that I didn't have enough damage to
justify them giving me any aid. $14,800 damage isn't enough damage to a

You could well argue that the damage is now 3265, your deductible.

person living on 1098 a month? Not only that, the lowest estimate I have
received to repair the roof is $17000. I'm trying to get my insurance

Or 5465.

But tile roofs are expensive. Storms are inevitable. 22% deductible
is pretty high, and one bears the risk that it won't be enough. I
have a friend whose mother lives in a condo in Floriday. (Condo
doesn't mean someone is rich, anymore than owning one's own home means
he is rich.) The whole n'hood sufferred roof tile loss. They are
being assessed by the condominum association to pay for part of it
(not all, because the CAssoc has storm insurance) and she has her own
insurance in addition that she expects will pay for most or even maybe
all of the rest. But she's paid for that insurance ever since she's
been there.

My mother occasionally complained that she was "insurance poor", but
she still bought it because she knew she had to have it. And if I paid
more attention to my situation, I might say the same thing.

BTW, I agree with having a high deductible. One should only insure
for risks one cannot afford to bear. For the rest, one can be a
self-insurer, and one doesn't have to pay for the insurance company's
profit or paper work. OTOH, you don't seem to be able to bear the
high deductible. What would the additional premium have been to have
a lower deductible?

company to re-evaluate and give more money towards the roof but the fact
remains that I still have 3265 deductible which I can't afford. I don't want
to wave the flag or anything like that but I served 4 years in the U.S.
Navy, I paid taxes all my life and never got anything for free from the
government.

You mean nothing exceptional. You got roads, police, fire, the
courts, an army, a navy, the FDA, the FCC, etc.

What is the criteria the government uses to determine who gets
and who doesn't get? I have the answer in my mind but I won't put it in
writing.

Would you want to trade places with those people on welfare whose
homes and all of whose belongings were totally destroyed?. Even if
there were not rainstorms, would like to live off of welfare?

How old are you? If you're considered too old to work (65?) and you
gave away most of your assets, you might be eligble for welfare too.
Would you want to live like that?

The US and the states have a general policy that even poor or
irresponsible people won't be left to die of exposure. It's
inevitably going to lead to results like your case that seem unfair.

But there is no "solution". If your losses were fully paid for,
people, not rich but with more money than you, or who bought better
insurance than you, who lost their roofs would think that paying you
was unfair.

It see,s they made some big mistakes in how they executed this, in the
case of these two strorms. Specifically it sounds like on the news
that the government paid the dailly rate to rent motel rooms instead
of negotiating a weekly or monthly rate. Unless they tried and
failed, which no news report I have heard or read has said, I think
that's pretty stupid. Heck, NYC hotels don't advertise a weekly rate,
but when my mother went to visit my brother there (in 1964) , what
she did the first day was go to about 5 nearby hotels and find which
would give her the next 7 days for the cheapest rate. A couple
offered no weekly rate, including the one she was staying at. But the
one across the street was about 40% or 50% off since she wanted to
stay a week. Maybe the demand exceeded the supply and no motel would
do this.





Remove NOPSAM to email me. Please let
me know if you have posted also.