Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Katrina and Insurance Claims
If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. TMT http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...05/09/11/AR200... Claims Mark Recovery's Beginning But Deciding How Much Damage Is Attributable to Floods May Get Tricky By Justin Gillis and Amy Joyce Washington Post Staff Writers Monday, September 12, 2005 HATTIESBURG, Miss. -- As the immediate humanitarian crisis eases in the Gulf Coast states, people are turning their attention to recovery, and for the vast majority, the key to recovery is an insurance claim. Insurance adjusters are flooding the region to cope with claims expected to number in the millions. Homeowners across a huge swath of the country now confront the most important financial moment of their lives -- getting an insurer to keep its promise to make them whole after a disaster. Some are likely to be caught up in a contentious debate over how much of the hurricane's damage should be attributed to flooding. As an insurance man crawled around a roof the other day in the broiling Mississippi sun, Eddie A. Holloway stood below in the kitchen, pointing to strips of paint and plaster hanging from a giant hole in the ceiling of a rental house he owns in Hattiesburg. The house, in a poor section of town, was rendered uninhabitable by the storm, and the tenants fled. "They're gone," he said, and so is his income on the property, perhaps for weeks or months. State Farm adjuster Curtis Rasmussen, fresh in town from Utah to handle claims, crawled down a trembling stepladder toting a digital camera to show Holloway the damage. Hurricane Katrina had stripped the roof bare, and a new one would be required. On this modest house alone, 70 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, State Farm will be writing a check for thousands of dollars. The scene will replay again and again across the region. Everywhere but New Orleans, insurance adjusters are thick on the ground already -- stuffing hotels, grabbing anything that resembles office space, firing up generators and pointing satellite dishes skyward in a desperate attempt to get Internet access in a region where many people still lack electricity. They are buoying spirits across three states with immediate $2,500 and $5,000 checks to cover living expenses. But the process of adjudicating several million claims has barely begun, and Hurricane Katrina is already posing a vexing set of insurance problems that will reach all the way to Washington. For starters, much of the damage along the Gulf Coast was caused by a surge of water that rose as high as 30 feet, the biggest storm surge ever recorded in North America. That surge was technically a flood, even though it was produced by a hurricane, and it is not covered by standard homeowners' insurance. Flood insurance has to be bought separately from the federal government. Many people in New Orleans had it, and they are likely to be made whole, though the payments are expected to send the government's flood-insurance program into the red. In Alabama and Mississippi, by contrast, many people did not have flood coverage, and that is sowing the seeds of a potentially vast conflict involving angry consumers, insurance companies, banks that write mortgages, state regulators and lawmakers in Washington. A huge fight may yet be averted if insurers succumb to political pressure to attribute most of the region's damage to wind instead of flooding -- a policy that regulators say could put some insurers at risk of bankruptcy. If the insurers enforce their policies as written, politicians are going to find themselves coping with unhappy constituents throughout the Gulf Coast who did not realize their damage would not be covered. There is already talk of massive lawsuits and the need for wholesale changes in the way federal flood insurance works. "I had $60,000 worth of contents, and I thought I had it made," said Dorice Mitchell, a 40-year resident of Pascagoula, Miss., who lost many of his belongings when his house flooded. He walked away from a State Farm catastrophe center empty-handed last week after learning his policy won't help him. "They said it ain't worth a dime. No flood insurance. I'm going to be living in apple crates." Because the task of assessing damage has barely begun, nobody has a clear idea how large insurance payouts will be. Preliminary forecasts run as high as $60 billion, which would make Katrina far costlier than Hurricane Andrew, the monster 1992 storm that walloped southern Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi and led to insurance payments of more than $20 billion in today's dollars. Andrew was a "dry hurricane" that did not produce anything like the flooding associated with Katrina. Insurance companies will not offer estimates of their exposure, saying it is simply too early to tell. But in this college town in southeastern Mississippi, it is possible to get a preliminary sense of the financial scope of the disaster. Katrina did not fall below hurricane strength until the eye was near Laurel, Miss., 30 miles northeast of Hattiesburg and 100 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The storm caused damage in a dozen states and reached Canada before it weakened into insignificance. Katrina cut a devastating path deep into central Mississippi, paralyzing the state government in Jackson for days. In regions so far inland they rarely see damage from tropical storms, Katrina killed dozens of people, snapped electrical poles off at the ground, drove tree limbs deep into houses, ripped open roofs, knocked down barns and traumatized tens of thousands of people. As of Saturday, more than 427,000 households in Louisiana and more than 162,000 in Mississippi remained without power, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Throughout the region, governments were struggling over the weekend to restore basic services. Hundreds of thousands of people were still living in shelters. Frenzied utility crews sweated in the hot sun, swatting away bugs, to rebuild the region's electric grid. State Farm, the nation's largest insurance carrier and also the largest in the afflicted states, grabbed an old furniture store in Hattiesburg right after the storm to set up a catastrophe center, and more than 100 adjusters are already operating out of it. State Farm, Allstate and other insurers have also stuck vans with claims processors in the parking lots of malls and Home Depot stores across the region. The companies, whose policies generally reimburse people for temporary living expenses caused by a disaster, are writing instantaneous checks for policyholders forced out of their homes. "For some of them it's a total surprise," said Daniel McNamara, who lives in Connecticut and heads a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. catastrophe team operating at the Home Depot parking lot in Hattiesburg. "They're tickled pink." Under a tent in a parking lot in Pascagoula last week, policyholders waited to see State Farm representatives. Shondra Jefferson, traumatized from watching people drown in the storm, left her 15-minute meeting with State Farm clutching a $2,500 check. "My funds are depleted," she said. She plans to use the money to patch her roof and clear debris. Consumer advocates who monitor insurance issues say this initial phase of disaster response usually goes well. "The insurance industry has learned that while the TV cameras are rolling, it's good to put on your nice shirt and write some additional living-expense checks for people," said J. Robert Hunter, former Texas insurance commissioner and director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America in Washington. "It's nice theater. And in fact, they owe the money. The trouble comes months later." State Farm's temporary center in Hattiesburg will be ground zero for handling claims from 13 Mississippi counties, not including the six closest to the Gulf of Mexico. Randy May, who arrived from Denver after the storm to head the operation, said his territory includes 24,000 homeowners with State Farm policies. By Friday afternoon, 8,505 of those policyholders had already called to report claims, and 12 percent of the cases were classified as having severe damage. The insurers pride themselves on rapid response to catastrophes. When Holloway, dean of students at the University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg, called State Farm to report damage to several of his rental properties, he heard back from Rasmussen, the adjuster assigned to two of his houses, within two hours. "I was totally surprised," Holloway said. "I'm most grateful for the immediate response." Still, settling claims is often a laborious process that can involve haggling over contractor estimates and over the value of a home's contents, assuming they were destroyed. Particularly near the coast, many people lost the very records that would let them document the value of their contents. And demand for contractors will be sky high in the disaster zone, slowing work. The biggest debates are likely to come over whether homes near the coast were destroyed by wind or flood. Of the estimated 400,000 flooded properties in three coastal counties of Mississippi -- Hancock, Harrison and Jackson -- just 21,600 had flood-insurance policies, said George Dale, the Mississippi insurance commissioner. Though some flooded residents of Louisiana also lacked flood coverage, that state is in better shape, according to figures from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. As of September 2004, 376,681 flood policies were in force in Louisiana, compared with 41,946 in Mississippi and 41,336 in Alabama. "All these people pay high insurance to live on the coast," Dale said. "They think, 'Well it has never flooded before. I'm paying enough already -- I don't need it.' " Hunter, of the consumer group, said most coastal homes probably suffered some wind damage before floodwaters destroyed them. But he said insurers have a financial incentive to attribute as much of the damage as possible to flooding, since they do not have to pay flood claims. Hunter called on state insurance departments to pressure the companies to use windstorm modeling or other techniques to try to calculate how badly homes in a given neighborhood were damaged by wind before the water hit. "What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' " Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' " |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message oups.com... If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living expenses tokeep people going. "What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' " Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' " This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened yet. I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for
flood damage and people who don't won't |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living expenses tokeep people going. "What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' " Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' " This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened yet. I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion. That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Glenn Ashmore wrote: "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living expenses tokeep people going. Actually, they were shooting an Allstate commercial. Those guys are already back home |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message newsHlVe.25135$hp.8124@lakeread08... "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. Where did it say that? What I read is that they are already paying living expenses tokeep people going. "What I'm afraid you'll see is, the policyholder has a $100,000 house and the insurance companies will say, 'It's 5 percent wind damage,' " Hunter said. " 'Here's $5,000; take it or leave it.' " This is an assumption made by someone, not a fact of what has happened yet. I see no FACTS to base a decision or form an opinion. That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Sideways? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"steve" wrote in message ups.com... sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for flood damage and people who don't won't as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote in message ... -- Sideways? In the case of a Hurricane sideways is not unusual. In 1970 our house filled with water, not from a hole in the roof and not from rising water in the street. It blew through the brick veneer and around the windows. The weep holes at the bottom of the brick could not drain fast enough and the water came in from the bottom of the soaked walls. The top of the walls were dry. Pretty freaky. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Sideways? Sideways is good if it started out higher than the damage. I have seen some real nits picked on this subject. One example: a water supply line broke where it enters a house at basement floor level. The water rose and flooded out the HVAC and everything in the basement. Coverage denied because it was rising water. OTOH, supply line breaks in the basement ceiling and floods the HVAC and everything in the basement. THEN you are covered because the water came from above the damage. To carry it to extremes, if you could prove that the water came in as a big wave that crested in the front yard and fell on your house you would be covered but storm surges and tsunamis don't work like that. They flow along rising and pushing everything over. In this case there will have to be some determination of how much damage was done by wind and how much by the surge. If you have seen aerial pictures of Gulf Port, that yellow line of framing timber marks the boundary. Everybody shore side of that line will probably be covered. Those within the debris field will have to be split between wind and flood damage. Those on the Gulf side will probably have to file for bankruptcy just as the laws change to screw them. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article oVmVe.25137$hp.558@lakeread08, Glenn Ashmore says...
I have seen some real nits picked on this subject. One example: a water supply line broke where it enters a house at basement floor level. The water rose and flooded out the HVAC and everything in the basement. Coverage denied because it was rising water. OTOH, supply line breaks in the basement ceiling and floods the HVAC and everything in the basement. THEN you are covered because the water came from above the damage. Hmm. So basically if your basement floods, take a garden hose and soak the house interior from roof to basement, and they'd cover it? Jim -- ================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ================================================== |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Glenn Ashmore But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote: "steve" wrote in message ups.com... sounds like people who had flood insurance will be compensated for flood damage and people who don't won't as it should be. damn well better not pay out for coverage that wasn't bought just to look good. we'll all pay for that. And the politicians who do that will pay for it, one way or another. --Tim May |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin
Pawlowski" wrote: "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Glenn Ashmore But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder. My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I agree with the general discussion but...
I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population had flood insurance. Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do? Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time. That is a significant number of votes. TMT |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Glenn Ashmore But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder. My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
oups.com... I agree with the general discussion but... I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population had flood insurance. That would mean that 60% of the properties (assuming we're talking about homes in flood plain, which I appears to include all of coastal LA and MS) are free and clear of any mortgage or other lien (home equity loan, home equity line of credit). No lender would have a lien on a home in flood plain without requiring flood insurance. Maybe that number is correct, but it sounds high to me. Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do? Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time. That is a significant number of votes. Sure it is. For people in LA and MS. I don't know how much pressure those homeless can exert on our fine senators here in Illinois. todd |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:52:53 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote: wrote in message .. . On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Glenn Ashmore But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder. My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. My lender is the US Government. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools wrote: I agree with the general discussion but... I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population had flood insurance. Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do? Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time. That is a significant number of votes. And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for votes. Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have a legal claim to it should be assassinated. --Tim May |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message ... "Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message oups.com... I agree with the general discussion but... I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population had flood insurance. That would mean that 60% of the properties (assuming we're talking about homes in flood plain, which I appears to include all of coastal LA and MS) are free and clear of any mortgage or other lien (home equity loan, home equity line of credit). No lender would have a lien on a home in flood plain without requiring flood insurance. Maybe that number is correct, but it sounds high to me. Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do? Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time. That is a significant number of votes. Sure it is. For people in LA and MS. I don't know how much pressure those homeless can exert on our fine senators here in Illinois. todd Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote. -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message news On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:52:53 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:05:45 GMT, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote: "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message If you were wondering how claims are handled in these situations, here is an insight into the process. From experiences that I have been seen, the insurance company will try anything to wriggle out paying a claim. That is not only fact, it is long held policy and one of the first things you learn in insurance schools.. An axiom of the insurance business is that if the water comes DOWN you are covered. If the water comes UP you are not. -- Glenn Ashmore But the article posted did not mention that. The OP drew that conclusion from it somehow and that is what I questioned. If the insurance company is not liable, they have no obligation to pay. If you live 6' below sea level and have no flood insurance, don't cry on my shoulder. My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. My lender is the US Government. Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new welfare thing I am not aware of? -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Tim May" wrote in message ... In article .com, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I agree with the general discussion but... I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population had flood insurance. Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do? Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time. That is a significant number of votes. And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for votes. Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have a legal claim to it should be assassinated. --Tim May Tim, Well said!!! If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal government was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a roof over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing ourselves. -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote: My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. My lender is the US Government. Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new welfare thing I am not aware of? It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Chris" wrote Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. Most lenders will require that you get Federal Flood insurance if you build in a flood plane. Either that or you have to put up some other collateral. Federal Flood Insurance will cover up to $200K in flood damage which usually means that is the limit of what they will loan. In southern Louisiana almost 80% of the homes and businesses have Federal Flood insurance but in Alabama and Mississippi the rate is closer to 15%. -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris" wrote: My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. My lender is the US Government. Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new welfare thing I am not aware of? It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the qualifications? Please do tell! -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Chris wrote:
It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the qualifications? Please do tell! doesnt HUD give loans? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Chris"
wrote: Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote. Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tim May wrote: Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have a legal claim to it should be assassinated. --Tim May Sounds like you are advocating assassinating ALL politicians -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"SoCalMike" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the qualifications? Please do tell! doesnt HUD give loans? HUD guarantees loans to the original loaner or mortgagee. Much like PMI that us working stiffs pay for, if needed. In other words, another source of welfare provided by our government. This is, given his comments, as our disillusioned friend has, another handout from our government. Although the welfare poster may be correct, many government programs barley trust them to pay the mortgage they insure, yet alone the associated flood insurance. Nor do they trust the homeowner's intelligence to select a safe home, thus the strict guidance on their insurance. More or less when you are getting mortgage insurance from the government, they will assume your are an idiot and provide strict guidelines on the home you purchase. At less some savings for us working stiffs. -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:45:00 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote: "SoCalMike" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the qualifications? Please do tell! doesnt HUD give loans? HUD guarantees loans to the original loaner or mortgagee. Much like PMI that us working stiffs pay for, if needed. In other words, another source of welfare provided by our government. This is, given his comments, as our disillusioned friend has, another handout from our government. Although the welfare poster may be correct, many government programs barley trust them to pay the mortgage they insure, yet alone the associated flood insurance. Nor do they trust the homeowner's intelligence to select a safe home, thus the strict guidance on their insurance. More or less when you are getting mortgage insurance from the government, they will assume your are an idiot and provide strict guidelines on the home you purchase. At less some savings for us working stiffs. Yep it's welfare alright... CORPORATE WELFARE You're just a racist, if you were worried about Welfare dollars and where they go you would focus on corporate welfare. Racism is ugly in any color. Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans The Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program helps create jobs and stimulates rural economies by providing financial backing for rural businesses. This program provides guarantees up to 80 percent of a loan made by a commercial lender. Loan proceeds may be used for working capital, machinery and equipment, buildings and real estate, and certain types of debt refinancing. The primary purpose is to create and maintain employment and improve the economic climate in rural communities. This is achieved by expanding the lending capability of private lenders in rural areas, helping them make and service quality loans that provide lasting community benefits. This program represents a true private- public partnership. B&I loan guarantees can be extended to loans made by recognized commercial or other authorized lenders in rural areas (this includes all areas other than cities of more than 50,000 people and the contiguous and urbanized area of such cities or towns). Generally, authorized lenders include Federal or State chartered banks, credit unions, insurance companies, savings and loan associations, Farm Credit Banks or other Farm Credit System institutions with direct lending authority, a mortgage company that is part of a bank holding company, and the National Rural Utilities Finance Corporation. Other loan sources include eligible Rural Utilities Service electric and telecommunications borrowers and other lenders approved by RBS who have met the designated criteria. Assistance under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program is available to virtually any legally organized entity, including a cooperative, corporation, partnership, trust or other profit or nonprofit entity, Indian tribe or Federally recognized tribal group, municipality, county, or other political subdivision of a State. Applicants need not have been denied credit elsewhere to apply for this program. The maximum aggregate B&I Guaranteed Loan(s) amount that can be offered to any one borrower under this program is $25 million. A maximum of 10 percent of program funding is available to value-added cooperative organizations for loans above $25 million to a maximum aggregate of $40 million. The following financial data is as of September 30, 2004: Obligations by State for 2000 through 2004 Memorandum of Agreement with Colson Services Corporation, a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase Bank The agreement will provide greater opportunity for rural lenders to participate in Rural Development's Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program. Program Administration The program is administered at the State level by Rural Development State Offices. To obtain the addresses and telephone numbers of State Offices, visit the Rural Development Field Office locator. For further information on this program, please call the State Office servicing your State. Available online forms can be found at www.sc.egov.usda.gov |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Nick
Hull wrote: In article , Tim May wrote: Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have a legal claim to it should be assassinated. --Tim May Sounds like you are advocating assassinating ALL politicians This is why I cheered when Al Qaeda sent planes toward Washington. I was hoping for the "Sato Solution," a decapitation of Congress. Most would have gotten away, it seems likely, but our estimates are that 190 or so actual Congresscriminals, plus vast numbers of staffer parasites, would have been given justice. Alas, one plane fell short. Another chose a completely unimportant target. I still hope that the AN-59K nukes sold in Samarkand in 1999 will decapitate the head of the snake...and remove 450,000 negro welfare recipients in Washington, too. --Tim May |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Archangel" wrote in message .. . "Chris" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris" wrote: My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. My lender is the US Government. Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new welfare thing I am not aware of? It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the qualifications? Please do tell! -- Chris There are two programs I can think of. One is the FHA loan for first time home buyers, the other is the VHA loan for veterans. -- Archangel - Jack of all trades, mastering some... Archangel & RavenSky's personal pages: http://www.REMhastenslowly.com/ remove the REM... (sleep is over rated) Again these are not loans but insurance for the lenders as provided by our government. Once again they are not loans but insurance to the lender. -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Nick Hull" wrote in message ... In article , "Chris" wrote: Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote. Likewise government 'workers' should not be allowed to vote. -- Free men own guns, slaves don't www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/ That too!!!! -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:45:00 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris" wrote: "SoCalMike" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. I am open ears as to what program this is? Better yet what are the qualifications? Please do tell! doesnt HUD give loans? HUD guarantees loans to the original loaner or mortgagee. Much like PMI that us working stiffs pay for, if needed. In other words, another source of welfare provided by our government. This is, given his comments, as our disillusioned friend has, another handout from our government. Although the welfare poster may be correct, many government programs barley trust them to pay the mortgage they insure, yet alone the associated flood insurance. Nor do they trust the homeowner's intelligence to select a safe home, thus the strict guidance on their insurance. More or less when you are getting mortgage insurance from the government, they will assume your are an idiot and provide strict guidelines on the home you purchase. At less some savings for us working stiffs. Yep it's welfare alright... CORPORATE WELFARE You're just a racist, if you were worried about Welfare dollars and where they go you would focus on corporate welfare. Racism is ugly in any color. Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans The Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program helps create jobs and stimulates rural economies by providing financial backing for rural businesses. This program provides guarantees up to 80 percent of a loan made by a commercial lender. Loan proceeds may be used for working capital, machinery and equipment, buildings and real estate, and certain types of debt refinancing. The primary purpose is to create and maintain employment and improve the economic climate in rural communities. This is achieved by expanding the lending capability of private lenders in rural areas, helping them make and service quality loans that provide lasting community benefits. This program represents a true private- public partnership. B&I loan guarantees can be extended to loans made by recognized commercial or other authorized lenders in rural areas (this includes all areas other than cities of more than 50,000 people and the contiguous and urbanized area of such cities or towns). Generally, authorized lenders include Federal or State chartered banks, credit unions, insurance companies, savings and loan associations, Farm Credit Banks or other Farm Credit System institutions with direct lending authority, a mortgage company that is part of a bank holding company, and the National Rural Utilities Finance Corporation. Other loan sources include eligible Rural Utilities Service electric and telecommunications borrowers and other lenders approved by RBS who have met the designated criteria. Assistance under the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program is available to virtually any legally organized entity, including a cooperative, corporation, partnership, trust or other profit or nonprofit entity, Indian tribe or Federally recognized tribal group, municipality, county, or other political subdivision of a State. Applicants need not have been denied credit elsewhere to apply for this program. The maximum aggregate B&I Guaranteed Loan(s) amount that can be offered to any one borrower under this program is $25 million. A maximum of 10 percent of program funding is available to value-added cooperative organizations for loans above $25 million to a maximum aggregate of $40 million. The following financial data is as of September 30, 2004: Obligations by State for 2000 through 2004 Memorandum of Agreement with Colson Services Corporation, a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase Bank The agreement will provide greater opportunity for rural lenders to participate in Rural Development's Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program. Program Administration The program is administered at the State level by Rural Development State Offices. To obtain the addresses and telephone numbers of State Offices, visit the Rural Development Field Office locator. For further information on this program, please call the State Office servicing your State. Available online forms can be found at www.sc.egov.usda.gov Do you know me? Must be. What race am I? Might I not be the same race as you? You do know what they say about people who assume? You did fail to mention which PROGRAM of welfare you qualified for as welfare from our government. Again, please do! It can only be assumed that if you are that stupid to think that the government gave you the loan, versus insuring the loan, you are truly a hindrance on the US. Your quote of government help to small companies is admirable. What you fail to realize is that this is a system of grants and guarantees from our US government, to assist companies to hire people who would otherwise be on welfare. Or in your case, receiving welfare on a mortgage. Or are you saying that people who provide for themselves and discredit others who do not, as racists? -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:08:27 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris"
wrote: You did fail to mention which PROGRAM of welfare you qualified for as welfare from our government. Again, please do! It can only be assumed that if you are that stupid to think that the government gave you the loan, versus insuring the loan, you are truly a hindrance on the US. You're a boring neocon. Conversation over. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message news On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 01:08:27 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris" wrote: You did fail to mention which PROGRAM of welfare you qualified for as welfare from our government. Again, please do! It can only be assumed that if you are that stupid to think that the government gave you the loan, versus insuring the loan, you are truly a hindrance on the US. You're a boring neocon. Conversation over. With that said it can be assumed (from your previous posts), that you are a foreigner, whom has contributed nothing to this once great country, yet only want from this country. It can also be assumed that you are uneducated as you are under the assumption that your "government loan" actually came from the US government. You are in fact a pimple on this once great country. Obviously an uneducated pimple, who relies on others in this country to provide for their own well being. BTW please tell us all here in the US which society deems welfare as acceptable? -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:29:40 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living "Chris" wrote: My lender will not finance homes that are on a flood plain. Are we talking a real lender (only a couple of handfuls) or a broker? Most lenders will lend in a flood zone. They use the 100year flood plan that is given to them when the property is appraised. If the property is in question, all that is normally required is the property owner to carry flood insurance on the property. More common sense than anything. I think your broker might be handing you some. My lender is the US Government. Since when is the government handing out loans? Or is this some new welfare thing I am not aware of? It's not welfare, it's a loan with a low interest rate. Funny how only in this country "welfare" is a bad word. We are so brainwashed in this country. Yep it is said how people who work for a living are paying for people who do not feel like working. I think us working people should work harder to provide for those who do not to work. You are free to head off to any country that is not "brainwashed" as we are on welfare. Before you leave, please let us know what country provides better welfare, and is not brainwashed. -- Chris If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a soldier. If it is in ebonics, thank your Congressman. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tim May wrote: In article .com, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I agree with the general discussion but... I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population had flood insurance. Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do? Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time. That is a significant number of votes. And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for votes. Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have a legal claim to it should be assassinated. Ah! A choice of ****ing off the majority of people who lack flood insurance or the minority who have it. Guess which group any politician will seek to **** off first? Yup, the group with flood insurance. Laws are made by politicians, you know. There are plenty of laws on the books that were born out of political whim rather than a sense of justice. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tim May wrote: In article , Nick I still hope that the AN-59K nukes sold in Samarkand in 1999 will decapitate the head of the snake...and remove 450,000 negro welfare recipients in Washington, too. BIGOT! PLONK! |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Chris"
wrote: "Tim May" wrote in message ... In article .com, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I agree with the general discussion but... I have seen it mentioned several places that only 40% of the population had flood insurance. Now if you have 60% of the population that can't afford to rebuild because of losses, what do you think the politicians will do? Also remember that over one million people are homeless at this time. That is a significant number of votes. And that is precisely why we are a nation of laws, not of pimping for votes. Any politician who votes to give money freely to those who do not have a legal claim to it should be assassinated. --Tim May Tim, Well said!!! If I remember correctly when we had a Constitution, the federal government was set up to protect the US from foreign interests. Not to provide a roof over our head and food to those who did not feel like providing ourselves. Your memory is a bit incomplete. The major goal by ratifying the Constitution was to keep government out of the private lives of individuals. Protection from foreign governments was part of it. If the founding fathers were opposed to welfare type assistance, I presume they would have said so in the Constitution and put some limits on government there, but they didn't as far as I can tell, nor has any congress since than or president put forth an amendment to do that. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Chris"
wrote: Most of the people homeless now, and asking for hand-outs would of probably been homeless before the mess, had it not been for our government. As a law, it should be imposed that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote. Fortunately, you are not in charge. Our government got rid of that draconian policy ages ago. If democracy bothers you, there are plenty of countries where you can happily live under a dictatorship. Perhaps we could limit voting on to those who know this country's history, but that would clearly let you out. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT - Katrina and Insurance Claims | Metalworking |