Washington Warming to National Disaster Plan Idea

March 16, 2007

  • March 16, 2007 at 11:15 am
    Rosie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    despite the neo-cons best efforts to shut him up, Barney looks out for PEOPLE first. It\’s a shame that more of Washington doesn\’t share his beliefs and have his ethics.

    I wonder how long it will take for \”Chip\”/Reagan/Chad Balamba to say something offensive in reply.

  • March 16, 2007 at 1:09 am
    Jeff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Rosie,

    I agree. It doesn\’t appear the private sector can deal with the problem effectively without pricing people out of their homes. While I think adding government intervention to a industry does increase cost and reduce efficiency, I believe the needs of the gulf coast citizens outweigh the \”free market\” solution. I, for one, do not mind paying a few extra dollars to help out my fellow Americans.

    And, for all the \”move away\” folks, that is not a solution. You cannot simply vacate large areas of the country.

  • March 16, 2007 at 1:59 am
    TXGuru says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As one of the afore mentioned \”move away\” people, I don\’t think anyone is proposing that we vacate large areas of the country. Speaking for myself, I\’m of the opinion that you should be able to afford the cost of living in the area you\’ve chosen to reside in, whether or not you\’ve moved there recently or been a lifelong resident.

    I also don\’t mind paying a few extra dollars to help my fellow Americans. I\’ve donated to United Way all my adult life, and have made contributions to Red Cross and other organizations after several catastrophes.

    What I do object to is having the government mandate via taxes that I support and subsidize the cost of living in areas of the country with higher exposures to disaster than I myself have chosen to live in and voluntarily accept.

    Take on the responsibility for yourself and pay your own way!

  • March 16, 2007 at 2:02 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank you, Jeff, for understanding and for your willingness to help. Those of us that do live in coastal regions expect to pay more and do pay more (even prior to 2005 and 2006 seasons) – example coastal cost of $3200 – where off the coast was $350 same exposure. With so much economy driven by our coastline, I hope everyone can find a way to understand this is a national issue.

  • March 16, 2007 at 2:04 am
    Andrew says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I still fail to see why some Americans should subsidize the choice of others to live in high risk, flood and hurricane prone areas. If someone chooses to live in a high risk area, they should accept the related responsibility.

    Jeff, I would rather give my \”few extra dollars\” to a nonprofit organization to help folks in need as opposed to subsidize some millionaire\’s condo/home on the coast.

  • March 16, 2007 at 2:15 am
    Al Berryman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is an enviromental disaster. Why are we using tax dollars to subsidize building in sensitive areas?? Assuming that global warming is correct we should be encouraging people to move away from low lying, coastal areas.

    Why should people in New Mexico subsidize a million dollar condo for someone in Florida??

    The coastal states can solve their problems by stronger building codes and state run pools. Let Florida and California pay for their own problems.

    Al

  • March 16, 2007 at 2:16 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Jeff,

    I agree with your opening comment; there are risks that the private insurance industry can not cover without charging premiums higher than anyone would be willing to pay. The higher the risk; the higher the premium. Many would say that for an insurance company to charge an actuarially sound rate for the risk they insure is tantamount to \”greed\”.

    As far as government intervention, let\’s be reminded of why the NFIP was created in the first place. We all agree that the private insurance industry can not insure the risk of flood due to the catastrophic nature of the peril, and the extremely high rates that would have to be charged.

    Prior to the NFIP, when catastrophic flooding occurred, the federal government would be called upon to provide financial assistance to those who suffered losses. The cost of this federal assistance is, of course, paid by all American taxpayers.

    The NFIP was created so that those who continued to live in flood prone areas, even after repeated flood losses, would bear more of the cost for future losses through premiums for federal flood insurance. These premiums are artificially low so that the coverage would be affordable. Taxpayers make up the difference when it comes time to pay claims. You help out your fellow citzens every time a flood claim is paid.

    As for all the \”move away\” folks, I don\’t believe they/we are talking about people moving away from the coast, as long as they can afford to responsibly insure the property they own.

    Those who should \”move away\” are the socialist minded, \”government will cure all\” people. And I would hope they would move far, far away.

  • March 16, 2007 at 2:25 am
    Upper Midwest says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let pass on the cost of other living expenses too besides flood insurance. How about having everyone in the nation help offset the cost to heat homes in the upper midwest during the winter months (This year has been the coldest we\’ve had in 10 years) with the average monthly heating bill being $300+ monthly.

    I choose to live in a part of the country that has the following 4 seasons: Summer (approx 3 months of humid, 85 degree plus weather); almost Winter (approx 2 weeks of 40-55 degree weather; Winter (lasts about 5-1/2 months of below freezing weather) and Post Winter (lasts 2-3 weeks of 45-70 degree weather). How about everyone helping us out with extra expenses we have that people in warm coastal area choose not to pay as part of their chose to live where they do?

  • March 16, 2007 at 2:27 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mike,

    \”- example coastal cost of $3200 – where off the coast was $350 same exposure.\”

    What cost are you talking about? Cost of flood insurance? The flood exposure on and off the coast are NOT the same. The exposure to flood is higher on the coast, therefore the cost of flood insurance will be higher.

    I would like to see some accurate statistics on how much of our national economy is driven by our coastline.

  • March 16, 2007 at 2:56 am
    Courtney says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Cheers to upper midwest! I agree. If I have to choke down the cost of others, why can\’t they help me out a little??



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*