While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

THe flaw in your argument is that there is no place that is totally safe from
natural disasters and the folks who think they are safe are more likely NOT to
have any insurance for it.
I agree there should be places where folks would have to accept their losses
(river bottoms and barrier islands) if they rebuild but you can't paint this
with too wide a brush.

Larry Bud wrote:
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

I did a little websearching after the last Florida disaster, and
couldn't determine what it is the federal govt. pays out. They do pay
for short-term humanitarian relief, but I don't think they pay to
rebuild houses and businesses. We hear these huge damage estimates
(say, $15BN); I think most of that is covered by Floridians through
their insurance premiums.

I would certainly be interested in more clarification on the whole issue
though.

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
m...
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

I'm tired of paying the price for frivilous lawsuits because some people are
just too stupid to use common sense...or because they don't want to take
responsibility for their actions and are looking to have someone pay for
their stupidity.

All of these "billions' are not really a loss. It is more like a public works
project that dumps a lot of money back into the economy. Cleaning up and
rebuilding is one job you can't ship offshore!

In article ,
(Larry Bud) wrote:

While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

Larry is correct in part, and the part he is correct in is the important
part because it's the publicly unrecognized one. Fed disaster relief
catches a lot of votes for the politicians involved all the way up the
chain(and avoids vote losses if they were to speak sanely like Larry).
The politics of disaster keeps the incorrect economic incentives in
place. That's really no different than the way we fund public education
however, in that the baby makers aren't 100% responsible for the costs,
so they make too many babies. Come to think of it, I'd be surprised if
the average person would incur 50% of the educ. costs if they had
another child. The burden of disaster costs and its influence on
location decisions might be angelic by public educ. standards.

*My* elected "representatives" don't listen to a word I have to say about
anything (like my request that they stop sending billions of *our* dollars
to foreign governments, etc.)...

I suppose you could try contacting *your* elected representatives, but
don't expect any action unless you are a large corporation which donates a
lot of money to their re-election campaigns, etc...

Sorry, but they have possession of your check book and they will write any
checks on your account they darn well please.


"Larry Bud" wrote in message
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

timeOday wrote in news:QKqdnc2Bc5z-UaDcRVn-
:

Larry Bud wrote:
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

I did a little websearching after the last Florida disaster, and
couldn't determine what it is the federal govt. pays out. They do pay
for short-term humanitarian relief, but I don't think they pay to
rebuild houses and businesses. We hear these huge damage estimates
(say, $15BN); I think most of that is covered by Floridians through
their insurance premiums.

I would certainly be interested in more clarification on the whole issue
though.

The insurance deductibles are now a percentage of your home's appraised
value.Premiums were increased,too.
I also believe that in some areas(beachfront),only repairs are allowed,not
construction of new replacement homes.IIRC,some of the homes in the Midwest
floods several years ago were in this category.

But much of the Florida damages are NOT from proximity to beachfronts,but
inland homes.

Also,I believe only low interest,favorable term LOANS are offered,not free
money;no giveaways.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Ron wrote in :



That's really no different than the way we fund public education
however, in that the baby makers aren't 100% responsible for the costs,
so they make too many babies.

Or immigrate illegally.Immigrant birthrates are far above citizen's BR's.
The same is happening in medical care.

Come to think of it, I'd be surprised if
the average person would incur 50% of the educ. costs if they had
another child. The burden of disaster costs and its influence on
location decisions might be angelic by public educ. standards.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Bill" wrote in
:

*My* elected "representatives" don't listen to a word I have to say
about anything (like my request that they stop sending billions of
*our* dollars to foreign governments, etc.)...

I suppose you could try contacting *your* elected representatives, but
don't expect any action unless you are a large corporation which
donates a lot of money to their re-election campaigns, etc...

Sorry, but they have possession of your check book and they will write
any checks on your account they darn well please.

Because they have a CAREER as "representatives",instead of a temporary job.
(no Term Limits)



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

If it sounds to good to be true it usually is!

Buyer beware!


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Bill" wrote in
:

*My* elected "representatives" don't listen to a word I have to say
about anything (like my request that they stop sending billions of
*our* dollars to foreign governments, etc.)...

I suppose you could try contacting *your* elected representatives, but
don't expect any action unless you are a large corporation which
donates a lot of money to their re-election campaigns, etc...

Sorry, but they have possession of your check book and they will write
any checks on your account they darn well please.

Because they have a CAREER as "representatives",instead of a temporary
job.
(no Term Limits)



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

I always wondered why they build such flimsy houses in hurricane prone
areas. I'm reasonably sure that something like my vintage 1950 brick
rowhome would hold up quite well in a hurricane. Would need to add
sturdy shudders for hurricane but other then that it should be OK.

I always wondered why they build such flimsy houses in hurricane prone
areas. I'm reasonably sure that something like my vintage 1950 brick
rowhome would hold up quite well in a hurricane. Would need to add
sturdy shudders for hurricane but other then that it should be OK.

Excluding the mobile homes the houses down here are very well built.
If you haven't been through a hurricane you just can't imagine the
forces that have to be dealt with. What I see mostly down here are
roofs being ripped off the houses. What happens is that the structure
gets breeched through a window or the wind pulling up a piece of wood
somewhere or by flying debris. Once the wind has a way in its pretty
much all over from there... The pull of the wind outside and the push
on the wind from the inside will make short work of the best roof
structures.

Hurricane Francis was only a tropical storm by the time it got to me
but it was still amazing. The wind would hit the gable vents and set
up a vibration that you could feel in the floor. Went to the beach
and could not open the car doors that were facing in to the wind.

Steve B.

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
m...
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

This is Turtle.

Larry , Before Flood insurance came along , the Federal government was repairing
and replacing homes for nothing after hurricans and it became too much cost to
take. So the Federal Government came up with Flood insurance and stop paying for
home repairs for nothing. The money taken up for flood insurance will take care
of all the losses due to flooding or weather damage. I live in Louisiana and I
have flood insurance on my home because it could flood if the right conditions
would happen. I have paid $400.00 a year for flood insurance and in 20 years of
paying it. i have never collected a Penny. I have paid in close to $120,000.00
in priemium and with interest added for them holding that money and not fixing
my home at all. I estimate that money would have growed to about $750,000.00
with 25 years of interest. So how may houses can they replace with 3/4 of a
million Dollars off of turtle alone in the Fla. Hurricane Flooding. I would say
i paid for 7 Homes alone off me and I guess i should be ****ed too but hey My
chance at a New home might just be around the corner.

Also Larry if you don't have flood insurance the Federal government will not fix
nothing on your home. the Red Cross will help you some with appliances & Clean
up but the home replacement is not happening. Now the Federal Government will
loan you money to replace your home with at about a 3% interest rate but if you
don't pay the cost of the loan. They come get your home and land and call it
waiste land or just own it for ever. Also if you borrow money from a bank and
you live where it floods. the bank requires you to have Flood insurance or they
don't loan you any money to build anything. Also as the Government loan of 3%
your required to have flood insurance in youir note.

Larry things are not happening as you thing here.

TURTLE

Steve B. wrote:
Once the wind has a way in its pretty
much all over from there... The pull of the wind outside and the push
on the wind from the inside will make short work of the best roof
structures.

I don't think so. New construction ( 10 years) in Florida mandates
roof-anchoring construction.

I don't think so. New construction ( 10 years) in Florida mandates
roof-anchoring construction.

If that was actually done.



Randy
http://members.aol.com/rsmeiner

JerryMouse wrote:
Steve B. wrote:

Once the wind has a way in its pretty
much all over from there... The pull of the wind outside and the push
on the wind from the inside will make short work of the best roof
structures.


I don't think so. New construction ( 10 years) in Florida mandates
roof-anchoring construction.




I think hurricane straps have been manditory for years on the gulf and
southern atlantic coasts, but the builders didn't use them and the
inspectors just winked. I have seen pictures from Florida where all the
houses were flattened by a hurricane, except for one house that survived
with only a few shingles missing. The house that survived was actually
built to code by the homeowner.

Bob

(Childfree Scott) wrote in
om:

I always wondered why they build such flimsy houses in hurricane prone
areas. I'm reasonably sure that something like my vintage 1950 brick
rowhome would hold up quite well in a hurricane. Would need to add
sturdy shudders for hurricane but other then that it should be OK.


I suspect a hurricane would rip the roof right off your house.
Current specs in Florida require metal straps to anchor the trusses to the
walls.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

rap (RSMEINER) wrote in
:

I don't think so. New construction ( 10 years) in Florida mandates
roof-anchoring construction.

If that was actually done.



Randy
http://members.aol.com/rsmeiner


It's supposed to be a key item checked by the inspectors.
(I said "supposed",folks)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

zxcvbob wrote in :

JerryMouse wrote:
Steve B. wrote:

Once the wind has a way in its pretty
much all over from there... The pull of the wind outside and the push
on the wind from the inside will make short work of the best roof
structures.


I don't think so. New construction ( 10 years) in Florida mandates
roof-anchoring construction.




I think hurricane straps have been manditory for years on the gulf and
southern atlantic coasts, but the builders didn't use them and the
inspectors just winked. I have seen pictures from Florida where all the
houses were flattened by a hurricane, except for one house that survived
with only a few shingles missing. The house that survived was actually
built to code by the homeowner.

Bob


Orlando and Orange county just came down hard(fired,actually,IIRC) on
several home inspectors who failed to flunk homes that the straps were
omitted or improperly secured(never nailed down).

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 18:28:31 -0500, "JerryMouse"
wrote:


I don't think so. New construction ( 10 years) in Florida mandates
roof-anchoring construction.



And they help but they aren't the be all end all answer to the
problem. They don't do a thing to help hold down the shingles and
plywood (although the new codes require the plywood or particle board
to be much better attached). If the wind is powerful enough the
anchors will give or the wood will give. Either way the hurricane can
win.

Steve B.

Ron wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Larry Bud) wrote:

While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

Larry is correct in part, and the part he is correct in is the important
part because it's the publicly unrecognized one. Fed disaster relief
catches a lot of votes for the politicians involved all the way up the
chain(and avoids vote losses if they were to speak sanely like Larry).
The politics of disaster keeps the incorrect economic incentives in
place. That's really no different than the way we fund public education
however, in that the baby makers aren't 100% responsible for the costs,
so they make too many babies. Come to think of it, I'd be surprised if
the average person would incur 50% of the educ. costs if they had
another child. The burden of disaster costs and its influence on
location decisions might be angelic by public educ. standards.


But you miss the whole point of government. It's to share costs for
the public good, which includes education of the young. Do you want to
live in a society that fails to educate its young? Do you want to live
in a society which fails to plan for public health crises such as
pandemics? To you want to live in a society in which it is every man
for himself? What happens to those who can't defend themselves, such
as the young, the elderly, the infirm?

"TURTLE" wrote in message ...
"Larry Bud" wrote in message
m...
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

This is Turtle.

Larry , Before Flood insurance came along , the Federal government was repairing
and replacing homes for nothing after hurricans and it became too much cost to
take. So the Federal Government came up with Flood insurance and stop paying for
home repairs for nothing. The money taken up for flood insurance will take care
of all the losses due to flooding or weather damage.

Good, so you are paying for flood insurnace like a good responsible
person. If all the people had the proper amount of insurance,
Congress wouldn't have to have a special $2 billion appropriation.


Also Larry if you don't have flood insurance the Federal government will not fix nothing on your home.

Will not fix nothing? Will not fix anything you mean? I'm not nit
picking your grammar, just trying to understand.

Regardless, if my tax money has to be spent, the home owner obviously
didn't have the proper amount of insurnace.

Look, I feel bad for these people. Living in S.E. Michigan, the worst
we ever see is an occasional tornado, snowstorm, or strong
thunderstorm. But even if a tornado wiped out my house, I have
insurnace to cover it. It's propably a 1 in a million chance that it
will happen, but I still am a responsible person and don't expect
anyone to be forced to pay for my possible losses.

(Greg) wrote in message ...
THe flaw in your argument is that there is no place that is totally safe from
natural disasters and the folks who think they are safe are more likely NOT to
have any insurance for it.
I agree there should be places where folks would have to accept their losses
(river bottoms and barrier islands) if they rebuild but you can't paint this
with too wide a brush.

Don't you think hurricanes hitting Florida is pretty common? This
isn't like a meteor landing on someone's home, for crying out loud.
It happens numerous times in a decade. Could be three big ones
if/when Isaac hits Fla. When the Mississippi River flooded out a few
years ago, the same people who were wiped out 30 years ago were wiped
out again. I distinctly remember people saying that they were going
to rebuild exactly in the same spot. This is ridiculous.

Why should I, WE, be paying for the gamble that someone else takes?
You state it in your first sentence, "folks who think they are safe
are more likely NOT to have any insurance for it.". I'm sorry, but
someone elses lack of preparation should not hit me, directly or
indirectly, in the pocketbook.

timeOday wrote in message ...
Larry Bud wrote:
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

I did a little websearching after the last Florida disaster, and
couldn't determine what it is the federal govt. pays out. They do pay
for short-term humanitarian relief, but I don't think they pay to
rebuild houses and businesses.

From the Fema.gov site, the application for losses:

Temporary Housing (a place to live for a limited period of time):
Money is available to rent a different place to live, or a government
provided housing unit when rental properties are not available.

Repair: Money is available to homeowners to repair damage from the
disaster that is not covered by insurance. The goal is to make the
damaged home safe, sanitary, and functional.

Replacement: Money is available to homeowners to replace their home
destroyed inthe disaster that is not covered by insurance. The goal is
to help the homeowner with the cost of replacing their destroyed home.

Permanent Housing Construction: Direct assistance or money for the
construction of a home. This type of help occurs only in insular areas
or remote locations specified by FEMA, where no other type of housing
assistance is possible.

Other Needs: Money is available for necessary expenses and serious
needs caused by the disaster. This includes medical, dental, funeral,
personal property, transportation, moving and storage, and other
expenses that are authorized by law.

They clearly help people rebuild their homes.

THe flaw in your argument is that there is no place that is totally safe
from
natural disasters and the folks who think they are safe are more likely NOT
to
have any insurance for it.
I agree there should be places where folks would have to accept their
losses
(river bottoms and barrier islands) if they rebuild but you can't paint
this
with too wide a brush.

Don't you think hurricanes hitting Florida is pretty common?

I bet the uninsured toll from Frances will be higher in states all the way from
Georgia to Ohio than it was in Florida.
Most of those people do not pay for any hurricane insurance.
What's your solution, just to abandon the 4th largest state (population) in the
union?
You will also have to include the entire Gulf coast and the eastern seaboard.
Most of the damage you do see is in mobile home parks and on the beach. I
already said we probably should not be subsidizing people who rebuild on
barrier islands but the same would have to apply to people who live on flood
plains.
That can be in virtually any state. They are flooding in Tennessee as we speak
.... from a hurricane.

Larry Bud wrote:

timeOday wrote in message ...


Larry Bud wrote:


While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.


I did a little websearching after the last Florida disaster, and
couldn't determine what it is the federal govt. pays out. They do pay
for short-term humanitarian relief, but I don't think they pay to
rebuild houses and businesses.



From the Fema.gov site, the application for losses:

Temporary Housing (a place to live for a limited period of time):
Money is available to rent a different place to live, or a government
provided housing unit when rental properties are not available.

Repair: Money is available to homeowners to repair damage from the
disaster that is not covered by insurance. The goal is to make the
damaged home safe, sanitary, and functional.

Replacement: Money is available to homeowners to replace their home
destroyed inthe disaster that is not covered by insurance. The goal is
to help the homeowner with the cost of replacing their destroyed home.

Permanent Housing Construction: Direct assistance or money for the
construction of a home. This type of help occurs only in insular areas
or remote locations specified by FEMA, where no other type of housing
assistance is possible.

Other Needs: Money is available for necessary expenses and serious
needs caused by the disaster. This includes medical, dental, funeral,
personal property, transportation, moving and storage, and other
expenses that are authorized by law.

They clearly help people rebuild their homes.



It has to be determined a disaster though. If a 747 crashes into my
house and no one else if affected, I am **** out of luck getting any
help from the goverment. My only hope is that the friggen' plane was
piloted by a terrorist and it wiped out my whole neighborhood.

But even if a tornado wiped out my house, I have
insurnace to cover it.

If that same torando hit my florida home, I would have to have over $16000 in
damages before I see one dime from insurance... and that's the best coverage I
can get. I also pay nearly 5k per year for that crappy coverage. So Larry,
quit ignorant bitching for a moment while I thank God & Country for FEMA's
help.

I'm leaving soon to attend the funeral of a neighbor who was killed during
Hurricane Frances. It would be nice, Larry, if you just let this thread die
and keep your opinion to yourself. Tonight, while you are nice and cozy, I
will finish hauling wet insulation and mushy drywall out of my shingless living
room.

****ed at your ignorance,
J.P.

BTW I am not sure we are really getting that big a government handout. My
insurance is almost $3000 a year for $100,000 of coverage with a $4000
deductible, per occurance and per policy.
If I have a flood and wind damage that is TWO deductibles and if that is over 2
storms it could be FOUR deductibles.
The FEMA help is a low interest LOAN that they expect to have paid back.
I assume they will tag your income tax returns

Greg wrote:

BTW I am not sure we are really getting that big a government handout. My
insurance is almost $3000 a year for $100,000 of coverage with a $4000
deductible, per occurance and per policy.
If I have a flood and wind damage that is TWO deductibles and if that is over 2
storms it could be FOUR deductibles.
The FEMA help is a low interest LOAN that they expect to have paid back.
I assume they will tag your income tax returns


If you live in an area that may have 2, 3, or more, hurricanes a year,
and you are complaining about your insurance rates, then move to another
area. If you want to continue to live in a tropical paradise, then live
with its tropical storms.
I live in a area that rarely has hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, or
forest fires. In the 20 years I have lived here, my insurance company
has made a total of $250 in claims to me because of spoiled food due to
a 74 hour power outage. FEMA doesn't even know where I live.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see anyone die, but those million
dollar yachts all bunched together in one pile didn't elicit an ounce of
sympathy from me.

If you live in an area that may have 2, 3, or more, hurricanes a year,
and you are complaining about your insurance rates, then move

In 20 years I have not had a single claim, why move?
It sounds like you are in the danger zone, you have had one.
BTW insurance here would not cover your $250 food claim.

Greg wrote:

If you live in an area that may have 2, 3, or more, hurricanes a year,
and you are complaining about your insurance rates, then move



In 20 years I have not had a single claim, why move?
It sounds like you are in the danger zone, you have had one.
BTW insurance here would not cover your $250 food claim.



Are you complaining about your insurance rates? If not, then disregard.

Are you complaining about your insurance rates? If not, then disregard.


No I am just commenting on those who think I am getting some kind of free ride.

I pay a lot for this free sunshine

(TinMan1332) wrote:

But even if a tornado wiped out my house, I have
insurnace to cover it.

If that same torando hit my florida home, I would have to have over $16000 in
damages before I see one dime from insurance... and that's the best coverage I
can get. I also pay nearly 5k per year for that crappy coverage. So Larry,
quit ignorant bitching for a moment while I thank God & Country for FEMA's
help.

Hmm, hurricanes occur every single year. Many years they hit that
part of the country that is mainly surrounded by water - namely
Florida.

Anyone who chooses to live in Florida shouldn't be surprised when a
hurricane comes. They also shouldn't be surprised when the insurance
companies recognize this same fact and price their policies
accordingly.

So, Tinman, if you choose to live in Florida, you pay the costs
associated with it. If you don't like the costs, there are many areas
around the country that don't have $5000 insurance bills every year.

Nobody forces you to live there year after year, storm after storm.

The government does force me to pay tax dollars so that they can
subsidize the people who choose to live in the higher risk areas.
Regardless of what you call it, it is subsidizing.

While you are thanking God & Country for FEMA, how about thanking the
rest of us that funded FEMA?



email to (remove the "notreal-")

AMEN! IF everybody was properly insured and recognized that the FEMA grants
and SBA loans are funded by taxpayers, the US would be better off.

Have a friend who didn't have earthquake insurance in Calif, on an active
fault, because earthquake would have a $20,000 deductible. They neglected
to figure the cost of the SBA loan payments after their house slipped off
the foundation during the Whittier Narrows quake. She is now the poster
child for quake coverage.
--
Totus Tuus
Claudia (take out no spam to reply)

CR scribed:
"Nobody forces you to live there year after year, storm after storm.

The government does force me to pay tax dollars so that they can
subsidize the people who choose to live in the higher risk areas.
Regardless of what you call it, it is subsidizing.

While you are thanking God & Country for FEMA, how about thanking the
rest of us that funded FEMA?"

"Larry Bud" wrote in message
om...
"TURTLE" wrote in message
...
"Larry Bud" wrote in message
m...
While I hope everybody is well after the pounding Florida took again,
I have to wonder why we put up with the Federal Government paying for
natural disasters that occur year after year. If you can't afford
the proper insurance for the disasters that hit your area, MOVE.

We all know Florida and the Carolinas get hammered by hurricanes,
California has earthquates and forest fires, Oklahoma has tornados,
and those who live in a flood plane of a river get floods, and those
who live at the base of a volcano get covered in lava, yet tax payers
are forced to reimburse those people who CONTINUE to rebuild in the
exact same spot time after time, knowing those places will get hit
again in the future. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

This is Turtle.

Larry , Before Flood insurance came along , the Federal government was
repairing
and replacing homes for nothing after hurricans and it became too much cost
to
take. So the Federal Government came up with Flood insurance and stop paying
for
home repairs for nothing. The money taken up for flood insurance will take
care
of all the losses due to flooding or weather damage.

Good, so you are paying for flood insurnace like a good responsible
person. If all the people had the proper amount of insurance,
Congress wouldn't have to have a special $2 billion appropriation.



This is Turtle.

Let me explain to you what the money was for here. It was not to fix homes but
to fix utilitys, roads, food for people out of their homes, place to let them
stay while they are flooded out, the public officals to get the mess cleaned up
after the flood. Washed out roads , food and help to people out of their homes
and public building repair does not come cheap these days. Paying for flooded
out homes has nothing to do with the 2 Bil. in ade for flood insurance takes
care of anybody with flood insurance and nothing to ones with no flood
insurance.

Your mixing state ade and flood insurance together and they are totally
different programs.

TURTLE

This is Turtle.

Let me explain to you what the money was for here. It was not to fix homes but
to fix utilitys, roads, food for people out of their homes, place to let them
stay while they are flooded out, the public officals to get the mess cleaned up
after the flood.

Turtle, I posted the official FEMA application for assistance which
clearly states that it can be used to fix homes. Please read it.

Your mixing state ade and flood insurance together and they are totally
different programs.

No, YOU are mixing them together. I'm saying if you want to live in
high risk areas, pay for enough insurance to cover yourself instead of
getting subsidies from the government when you get hit.

(TinMan1332) wrote in message ...
But even if a tornado wiped out my house, I have
insurnace to cover it.

If that same torando hit my florida home, I would have to have over $16000 in
damages before I see one dime from insurance... and that's the best coverage I
can get. I also pay nearly 5k per year for that crappy coverage. So Larry,
quit ignorant bitching for a moment while I thank God & Country for FEMA's
help.

I'm leaving soon to attend the funeral of a neighbor who was killed during
Hurricane Frances. It would be nice, Larry, if you just let this thread die
and keep your opinion to yourself. Tonight, while you are nice and cozy, I
will finish hauling wet insulation and mushy drywall out of my shingless living
room.

****ed at your ignorance,
J.P.

While I'm sorry for your loss, this doesn't preclude that many people
don't take responsibility for living in high risk areas. Nobody if
forcing you to live in the state, you're free to move anywhere you
like.

Obviously you're emotional about this issue, but try to think clearly
about it. You live in a high risk area. Florida has an AVERAGE
elevation of about 100 feet above sea level. You get pounded year
after year with tropical storms and hurricanes. You should know the
risks, and you SHOULD be hit with high insurance rates because of the
risk. If you can't afford it, move.

But for you to think that all the rest of us who take responsibility
with either the proper insurance coverage or by moving to a lower risk
area should be ready to hand cash over because of your stubborness,
ignorance, stupidity, or gall, I'm sorry, but I've lost sympathy for
you. I doubt you're an idiot. I'm sure you understand the risks, but
you seem to have a "you owe me" attitude which I guess I'll never
understand.

Don't you think hurricanes hitting Florida is pretty common?

I bet the uninsured toll from Frances will be higher in states all the way from
Georgia to Ohio than it was in Florida.
Most of those people do not pay for any hurricane insurance.

They might not have hurricane insurance, but people can buy insurance
to cover this type of damage.

What's your solution, just to abandon the 4th largest state (population) in the union?

Make these people understand that this will be the last time they get
federal handouts, that if they CHOOSE to be underinsured and live in a
high risk area, the government isn't going to be there for them if
they make another stupid decision to rebuild without proper insurance.


You will also have to include the entire Gulf coast and the eastern seaboard.
Most of the damage you do see is in mobile home parks and on the beach. I
already said we probably should not be subsidizing people who rebuild on
barrier islands but the same would have to apply to people who live on flood
plains.
That can be in virtually any state. They are flooding in Tennessee as we speak
... from a hurricane.

A flood planes are known areas by insurance companies. They've
flooded in the past, and will flood again in the future. We KNOW
this. Yet people rebuild, and somehow are SHOCKED that, egads, a
RIVER actually flooded?