Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: miraje who wrote (135226)	8/30/2005 12:48:03 PM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Respond to of 793561

James, you are entirely correct re the exorbitant cost of earthquake insurance and its obscenely high deductibles. I would like to add also that people whose homes are damaged/destroyed in an earthquake have to qualify financially to obtain those FEMA loans but, sadly, many are unable afford to rebuy/rebuild the house they have lived in for perhaps decades. Another unfortunate fact is that most insurance companies will not insure individual condominium/townhouse owners for earthquake damage; the whole development has to agree to buy a policy from one insurance company, and that does not happen too often. If no one were to live in proximity of a faultine in California, it could well empty out the state. - Holly

To: miraje who wrote (135226)	8/30/2005 12:49:13 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793561

I mostly agree with you. There have been abuses. In New Orleans' case, however, the last time any signficant flood claims were made was in 1985 as a result of Hurricane Juan and a few rain claims thereafter but nothing extraordinary until now. In fact Juan spurred the construction of hurricane levees without which what we see now would be truly catastrophic. There have been lots of claims north of Lake Pontchartrain, but I don't consider these parishes part of NO proper. Moreover, the feds are taking steps with respect to folks who make repeated claims, i.e., making them raise their homes as a condition for coverage. But that is not the point of the discussion. I thought we were talking about the role of the feds in a disaster. In my view, it should assist the needy, despite their "foolish" decisions. Others seem to disagree.

To: miraje who wrote (135226)	8/30/2005 12:58:16 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 793561

It's cheap government provided flood insurance that's responsible for houses and businesses to be rebuilt, time and again, in places that are unfit and unsafe, such as flood plains and beach areas that are regularly in the path of hurricanes. Taxpayers are supporting construction in places where diligence and personal responsibility would dictate otherwise. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to stay in these areas that get hit, time and again.. two words moral hazard as long as we subsidize and incentive-ize risky behavior, it will continue lather, rinse, repeat