whereby part of the 15% who don’t have health insurance are made of twenty
somethings who won’t purchase health insurance because they don’t think they
need it. Nonetheless they become a part of the health insurance debate, which only seems to discuss the what (some don’t have health insurance) but not the why (because its automatically assumed the why is that its too expensive).
Until we discuss the why I don’t see
government health insurance ever getting off the ground. In my state we have Group Health aka Group Death. That’s as frighteningly close to government health insurance as I hope I ever see in my life time.
I’m sure the fact that folks in MS who did not have flood policy have not only rec’d up to $150K in federal grants, but they get to keep that if they receive a settlement to a disputed claim.
Why pay for flood insurance when Dickie Scruggs will help you get double indemnified for your loss.
Does anyone really believe these folks also will fully be denied at the federal, state or local level?
Not as long as CNN is there to help them explain how it was everyone else fault they weren’t properly insured etc. etc.
they most likely can not afford to renew. We should be spending our tax dollars helping our neighbors and fellow citizens, rather than financing Iraq with all its oil billions. Another NeoCon mistake that only ends up hitting us in the pocketbook.
Or they most likely cannot afford to renew because they bought beer & cigarettes, or a new hdtv or truck, etc. Anything not to show any personal responsibility.
Notwithstanding the fact we shouldn’t be wasting our money in Iraq, we’re not a socialized society. Personal responsibility is still operative. Since when should anyone be able to expect someone else to bail them out when they’re too short-sighted and/or stupid to take care of themselves? Andrew is right on the money. Most of these people put insurance at the bottom of their priority list. That’s their right and they should have to live with the consequences. Flood insurance is one of the best buys going. If someone can’t afford that, they shouldn’t be living in a flood zone. There will always be some people who can’t make it in life. But enabling them to keep that mentality is wrong.
rdeane – Amen to your comments. I have always thought it was a travesty to give disaster assistance money to people who refused to buy insurance to cover (in this case) a risk that had a fairly high possibility of occuring.
The interesting point is that these folks who are letting the insurance lapse must not have a home loan. Generally, is you are in a flood risk area and have your home financed, you are required to have flood insurance. Why aren’t the banks jumping in there when they see that the flood insurance is not renewed?
Why keep flood insurance on property that is not repairable. I know some of the people that dropped their flood insurance are not rebuilding and are moving to other areas. So I can see why they dropped their flood insurance. The report fails to say that.
Must be you didn’t read all the way to the end of the article – the last two paragraphs said:
“It’s not that people are demolishing homes or dropping coverage on flooded and gutted properties, because the dropped policies are from a batch of new ones that were sold after the storm.
Barton wonders whether it could be that people are broke or have moved from a temporary location after the storm where they don’t think they need flood insurance anymore, or whether memories of the storm are fading.”
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
whereby part of the 15% who don’t have health insurance are made of twenty
somethings who won’t purchase health insurance because they don’t think they
need it. Nonetheless they become a part of the health insurance debate, which only seems to discuss the what (some don’t have health insurance) but not the why (because its automatically assumed the why is that its too expensive).
Until we discuss the why I don’t see
government health insurance ever getting off the ground. In my state we have Group Health aka Group Death. That’s as frighteningly close to government health insurance as I hope I ever see in my life time.
I’m sure the fact that folks in MS who did not have flood policy have not only rec’d up to $150K in federal grants, but they get to keep that if they receive a settlement to a disputed claim.
Why pay for flood insurance when Dickie Scruggs will help you get double indemnified for your loss.
Does anyone really believe these folks also will fully be denied at the federal, state or local level?
Not as long as CNN is there to help them explain how it was everyone else fault they weren’t properly insured etc. etc.
“What , me worry??????????????”
they most likely can not afford to renew. We should be spending our tax dollars helping our neighbors and fellow citizens, rather than financing Iraq with all its oil billions. Another NeoCon mistake that only ends up hitting us in the pocketbook.
Or they most likely cannot afford to renew because they bought beer & cigarettes, or a new hdtv or truck, etc. Anything not to show any personal responsibility.
Notwithstanding the fact we shouldn’t be wasting our money in Iraq, we’re not a socialized society. Personal responsibility is still operative. Since when should anyone be able to expect someone else to bail them out when they’re too short-sighted and/or stupid to take care of themselves? Andrew is right on the money. Most of these people put insurance at the bottom of their priority list. That’s their right and they should have to live with the consequences. Flood insurance is one of the best buys going. If someone can’t afford that, they shouldn’t be living in a flood zone. There will always be some people who can’t make it in life. But enabling them to keep that mentality is wrong.
rdeane – Amen to your comments. I have always thought it was a travesty to give disaster assistance money to people who refused to buy insurance to cover (in this case) a risk that had a fairly high possibility of occuring.
The interesting point is that these folks who are letting the insurance lapse must not have a home loan. Generally, is you are in a flood risk area and have your home financed, you are required to have flood insurance. Why aren’t the banks jumping in there when they see that the flood insurance is not renewed?
Why keep flood insurance on property that is not repairable. I know some of the people that dropped their flood insurance are not rebuilding and are moving to other areas. So I can see why they dropped their flood insurance. The report fails to say that.
Must be you didn’t read all the way to the end of the article – the last two paragraphs said:
“It’s not that people are demolishing homes or dropping coverage on flooded and gutted properties, because the dropped policies are from a batch of new ones that were sold after the storm.
Barton wonders whether it could be that people are broke or have moved from a temporary location after the storm where they don’t think they need flood insurance anymore, or whether memories of the storm are fading.”
Ray, Barton does not have to wonder any longer!