NEW YORK (AP) -- Homeowners suffering flood damage from Harvey are more likely to be on the hook for losses than victims of prior storms - a potentially crushing blow to personal finances and neighborhoods along the Gulf Coast.
Insurance experts say only a small fraction of homeowners in Harvey's path of destruction have flood insurance. That means families with flooded basements, soaked furniture and water-damaged walls will have to dig deep into their pockets or take on more debt to fix up their homes. Some may be forced to sell, if they can, and leave their communities.
"All these people taken out in boats, they have a second problem: They have no insurance," said Robert Hunter, director of insurance at the Consumer Federation of America.
#1: XDMAR To: All (#0)
XDMAR posted on 2017-08-29 10:43:30 Reply Private Reply
#2: Vicomte13 To: XDMAR (#0)
...until Congress provides relief.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-08-29 10:43:51 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: XDMAR (#0)
So? Let them sign up for homeowner's insurance and claim a pre-existing condition. We do it for healthcare -- why not for homes? Cars, too?
There is no need to punish people for being stupid and selfish by spending their money on cars and clothes and vacations rather than insurance. Let's all pitch in and pay higher rates so they don't suffer.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-29 10:48:19 Reply Private Reply
#4: XDMAR To: misterwhite (#3)
XDMAR posted on 2017-08-29 10:57:38 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: XDMAR (#4)
Ohhh, very much so.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-29 11:59:18 Reply Private Reply
#6: Stoner To: misterwhite (#3)
Also, all taxpayers will be paying much more to "help" those "unfortunate" that have no insurance. ( Their own fault BTW )
Stoner posted on 2017-08-29 12:26:10 Reply Private Reply
#7: Stoner To: XDMAR (#0)
Stoner posted on 2017-08-29 18:59:50 Reply Private Reply
#8: Willie Green To: XDMAR (#1)
Well I hope you fared well during this adversity...
We live in Cypress, NW Harris County, and are very fortunate to live on high ground. We had to hunker down during the worst of the storm and many of the roads were impassible due to ponding, but the closest homes that were flooded due to the creeks rising & overflowing were maybe 2.5 ~ 3 miles away. The drainage gully behind our development was flowing high & swift, but it still had a few feet to go before it would've topped its embankment.
Willie Green posted on 2017-08-30 20:55:53 Reply Private Reply
#9: A K A Stone To: Willie Green (#8)
A K A Stone posted on 2017-08-30 21:10:47 Reply Private Reply
#10: redleghunter To: Vicomte13 (#2)
I think the disaster declaration by POTUS allows uninsured flood damage to be claimed through FEMA.
Certainly for those who were outside the declared flood plain.
In Texas I know where I live if you live near lake front property you have to have flood insurance. Most banks demand such when lending for a mortgage.
redleghunter posted on 2017-08-30 22:47:56 Reply Private Reply
#11: Vicomte13 To: redleghunter (#10)
Exactly. That's how we handle disasters in the USA, for reasonably good economic and political reasons. Insurance is great for individual disaster, but mass casualty disaster through act of God (aging is included in this) overwhelms all insurers profitability at any rate that the bulk of people could pay. And if you decide you're just going to let the uninsured go homeless and lose everything on a "fuck 'em" theory, you only end up fucking yourself, because having been rendered destitute, they then all end up on welfare, Section 8, Medicaid, food stamps - the lot of it - and that is much, much more expensive than one-time disaster relief payments that restore property and keep the individuals employed, earning and paying taxes. If the disaster relief costs $100,000 per family, but the family keeps working at the median $57,000 per year, and keeps paying taxes at the median $15.000 per year, and keeps providing employment for goods and services to others, that relief aid is paid back in direct taxes within 7 years, and all of the other people in the economy from whom that family earns its living continue earning as well. But if you take the "Fuck 'em" approach of the sort of conservatives whose heads are screwed on with bolts, then you end up spending $36,000 per year for an average of 3-5 years to keep them alive on welfare, you get no tax offset, you don't get their economic activity, you get kids whose lives are far more disrupted who then grow up to be undereducated criminals, and you inflict upon yourself, in train, decades of expenses for incarceration and a new generation of welfare. So, you can bite the bullet and provide mercy and get paid back. Or you can be a merciless asshole and end up spending 7 times as much over time. Either way you pay, and if you do it the merciful way the people are back on their feet and out of your hair quickly, and they don't become welfare and crime cases that plague you for a lifetime. This is why we have representative government and not direct democracy. Because direct democracy of struggling people will go for "Fuck 'em", and make everybody's lives worse forever. Representative democracy elects more educated people who understand what opportunity cost is, and factor that in when making decisions. That is why we always help the disaster afflicted, because it is seven times less expensive over time to do it.
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-08-31 06:45:07 Reply Private Reply
#12: A K A Stone To: Vicomte13 (#11)
A K A Stone posted on 2017-08-31 07:04:59 Reply Private Reply
#13: Vicomte13 To: A K A Stone (#12)
Vicomte13 posted on 2017-08-31 08:27:44 Reply Private Reply