Reply With Quote
Here's tornadoes for May last year:
April this year:
I looked at several other months. Seems like tornadoes here are more common than Missouri, so insurance should be less there.
I asked someone who had their house destroyed here in Oklahoma and was told it was $50/month. This is tornado country. Unlike flood insurance, it's affordable.
Doesn't Oklahoma have more tornadoes than Missouri, similar, or is it less?
We had some serious damage in this Area. The same storm that had tornadoes touch down here also hit Dallas. I had a flight with American Airlines today to go back home to Portland, but it's cancelled. Dallas is a major AA hub. I was told over 80 AA planes were damaged on the ground by hail, and 55 are still out of service.
Here's tornadoes for May last year:
April this year:
I looked at several other months. Seems like tornadoes here are more common than Missouri, so insurance should be less there.
Who said they are left on the street?
Why do you liberals think it's the job of the federal government to do everything for you? There are already nonprofits that do such things.
you have no place here to tell anyone about insurance.
must be a dumb not to take out insurance on family home if its valued 300k+...
There was a HUGE stink because the quasi-governmental insurer of last resort, the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association, did just that, but with entire houses after Ike.
We are talking about paying "slab" claims, sight unseen, with no pictures from the claim adjuster or anything, for up to $300,000+ in some cases. "Slab" means the house is nothing more than a slab, and the full assessed/claimed value is paid out.
Whoopsies. From what I understand, that was the tip of the iceberg when it came to the shinanigans. Have to dig up the article again.
Why do you libertarians think that all problems can/will be solved by the free market?
man, with the blind faith you give the free market one might as well expect things to be taken care of by unicorns sprinkling pixie dust.
I certainly don't think the government should run everything, but it definitely has a common sense role in addressing problems common to the entire country.
I am quite aware that the free market isn't the solution for everything. My problem is that too many people think the government is the solution for everything.
As far as I know, insurance for such things do include a degree of money for temporary relocation. Insurance is required if you have a mortgage to pay. I know it's tough, but people need to live with their choices. I wouldn't argue against limited government help, but to attack politicians who have a stance that we have already spent too much, when we have also hit the debt ceiling?
How about a dose of reality. Since that ceiling is hit, just how do we use government funds to help here without cutting elsewhere?
Those of you advocating help the most. Put you money where your mouth is. Donate to the Red Cross or other known organizations who help, today.
now you want us to donate for your healthcare?
""UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
-Barack Hussein Obama, mmmmmm mmmmm mmmmmm
I always thought that was a very faulty comparison. They aren't really direct compe ors. UPS and FedEx only handle expedited shipping, while the post offices focus is on normal mail, with expedited shipping as an added service. Of course an added service isn't going to compete with primary focus.
Additionally, the Post Office only really started having problems over the last half decade or so because of the large-scale increased email availability. Couple that with their perpetually "brilliant" idea of increasing the rates on mail that can easily be converted to being handled electronically for free, and of course you'll have problems.
I agree the comparison is faulty.
Funny how over the decades, the post office normally generated more revenue than it spent for operations. Guess what. Congress spent the extra. I think congress and the president are just now pissed off that they have to pay the Postal Service back some of this money.
There's a reason we have FEMA. Charities/Non-profits are easily overwhelmed when the volume of people affected is big enough, plus they don't necessarily have the expertise or expedience of a professional group of people specifically trained to tackle emergencies.
And unlike you, I never asked of anything from the federal government. The liberal cashing in foodstamps was you, not me.
It is. Plus the Post Office 'always' having problems is a flat out lie. Their struggles are fairly recent.
Will you stop being a ing liar?
I never cashed in food stamps. I never used them either. That's what happens when you lib s start believing each other propaganda.
Places like the Red Cross act immediately. FEMA has some funding to respond immediately too, but are bogged down by bureaucracy.
Tell me. Where is this money going to come from unless we do like the OP points out? Remember... We hit the debt ceiling.
Things like food stamps and other social welfare are acceptable in my book as a safety net. For people needing help for the short term. Not long term except for the elderly and handicapped.
You lib s are perfectly happy that the safety net became a hammock.
you are so full of . a true american disgrace.
Do you ever run out of straw?
Did you sign up for foodstamps, yes or no? I've never asked anything from the federal government nor expect anything from it. So you you were flat out lying.
I don't have a problem with prioritizing and offsetting some money from the military budget and foreign aid. We need to stop pretending that wasteful spending never touches one of the biggest part of our budget.
We all know where you stand. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You're stating people on an emergency should have gotten insurance, but the reality is that some people are unemployed and can't afford it. I don't expect the government to offer free insurance or pay it for them, but some people have genuinely an emergency and I have no problem for the agency created to deal with it to actually do their job.
More strawman and generalization...
Because it is, you dumb . There's a reason FEMA was established.
50 dollars a month for insurance solely for tornadoes is an absolute ing rip off gold mine for the insurance companies. Even in a place like OKC, your house has a microscopic chance of being damaged severely enough to need insurance. We established FEMA for a reason and it wasn't so that we could all run out and give people absurd amounts of money for extremely rare instances.
Lets say there are 5 million homes in high risk tornado areas. 50 dollars a month is then 250 million dollars every month, or 3 billion per year. The total amount of property damaged caused by tornadoes is not even a billion per year on average. A large part of that is not even homes but other buildings. Talk about a ing raping by insurance companies. The risk is so damn tiny.
http://www.economics.noaa.gov/?goal=...ado&view=costs
Leave it to you to use graphs or items without having a clue what they mean. How many square miles are in Missouri? How many square miles are affected by strong tornadoes per year? What is the actual risk to homes in Missouri?Here's tornadoes for May last year:
April this year:
I looked at several other months. Seems like tornadoes here are more common than Missouri, so insurance should be less there.
Most tornadoes cover extremely small areas and are weak. 80% of tornadoes will do at most superficial damage to weak because they are either EF0 or EF1. The damage you see in Joplin is from an EF5 tornado which through history there have been very very very few. Most tornadoes are so weak that if they hit a home would cause minor damage that could easily be fixed. The chances of being effected by an EF5 are nowhere near worth spending 600 dollars a year on.
You trying to post figures like that proves absolutely nothing other than you are once again ignorant. If you were as smart as you think you are then you might have thought of these questions before I posed them to you.
No one would think twice about sending in FEMA to help people hurt by a tropical storm or hurricane and those events are actually far more common and expected. Hurricane damage is over 5 times greater per year than tornado damage.
No, I do understand.
Riddle me this.
When only a dozen or so families lose their homes, why isn't there an advocacy like there is when it's thousands?
Individually, those in the small group suffered equal to the individuals in the larger numbered ones.
If the government isn't going to provide housing for the dozen, why should they for the thousand+?
This recent tornado that hit the Oklahoma City area was a more common sized one that destroyed homes too. Are you trying to tell me that only the rare 5's make people homeless?
No.
Show me where you think I'm wrong.
I never said it didn't. I'm acknowledging the reality of the republican response since we hit the debt ceiling.
No, it's irrelevant to try to discuss with you because of your lies.
Unless a home is paid for, getting a mortgage requires you have insurance too. ow many of these people won't get reimbursed when it's a required part to secure the loan, and rarely not part of the loan payments? If they aren't making the payments, ten they are in a foreclosure process already.
How many people have their home paid off, and don't have insurance? Very few I bet.
I guess if you drive without car insurance, get in a wreck, you want your Uncle Sam to buy you a new car. Seems like a proper analogy to me.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
