FEMA wants their money back!

[ducklite]

And just like DL, you have no idea what someone else's situation is either and it's pure speculation on both your parts.

Good for you that you got on your feet. I've got neighbors here who DID have insurance and DID have provisions and still things went tragically wrong. I've got neighbors who can't move back into their homes because they got low-balled by their insurance companies and can't afford to take them to court. Gee, maybe, as they sent out that premium check, they should've known their insurance company wasn't going to pay. Maybe as they stacked up the provisions, they should've known their roof was going to come caving in. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Regardless, using someone's personal tragedy as a jump off point to peddle your own "personal responsibility" agenda is disgraceful. And, kicking someone while they're down goes to the heart of character. Doubly so when it's done under they guise of "honesty".

Btw, water damage caused by storm surge flooding is wind damage and not simple flooding as claimed by the insurance companies and some of the "experts" on this board. People's homes along the Gulf Coast and NO were not damaged by floods. They were damaged by high winds resulting in a storm surge and government neglect of the levees. Geeez, maybe they should've had insurance for neglect and lying. Yup, that's the ticket.

While I have empathy for people who are having problems getting their insurance to pay up, it's still a private matter between them and their insurance company. The only way government should be involved is if a complaint is made to a government regulatory agency, such as the insurance commissioner, or if the matter ends up in the courts. (And BTW--many attorney's will take these types of cases on a contingency basis, no upfront fee required.)

Rebuilding private property is between the owner of the property and the insurance carrier, it is not the responsibility of the government or taxpayers. I'm not sure what you expect the taxpayer to do for people in that situation.

People who live in homes in coastal or low lying areas protected by levees took an inherent risk when they chose to build or buy those homes, regardless of how well a levee system was, or wasn't maintained. Had a levee been knocked out by a terrorist bomb and done the same damage, would it still be the governments fault or responsibility to cure? And for most of the people along the MS and AL coastline, there were no levees to breach. So who do they have to blame?

Anne

 

[LuvDuke]

While I have empathy for people who are having problems getting their insurance to pay up, it's still a private matter between them and their insurance company. The only way government should be involved is if a complaint is made to a government regulatory agency, such as the insurance commissioner, or if the matter ends up in the courts. (And BTW--many attorney's will take these types of cases on a contingency basis, no upfront fee required.)

Rebuilding private property is between the owner of the property and the insurance carrier, it is not the responsibility of the government or taxpayers. I'm not sure what you expect the taxpayer to do for people in that situation.

People who live in homes in coastal or low lying areas protected by levees took an inherent risk when they chose to build or buy those homes, regardless of how well a levee system was, or wasn't maintained. Had a levee been knocked out by a terrorist bomb and done the same damage, would it still be the governments fault or responsibility to cure? And for most of the people along the MS and AL coastline, there were no levees to breach. So who do they have to blame?

Anne

First, get a clue. The people you look down your nose at ARE taxpayers.

Second, what part of flooding caused by storm surge which is caused by high winds do you not understand? There was no need for a separate flood policy as the damage was caused by high winds, which btw, is covered by a standard insurance policy.

Third, are you actually suggesting everyone should move away from any area that may have a potential to cause damage?

Geez, close up California that has those earthquakes.

Shut down the Midwest that has those tornadoes.

Get the hell out of Florida for the hurricanes. (this means you)

Oh no, move away from the Rockies and that potential avalanche problem.

Ooo, stay away from Washington state and that ornery Mt. St. Helens.

How ridiculous do you want to make this assuming it can even get more ridiculous than it already is?

Yanno what, people like you are so caught up in your own rhetoric, you don't even make sense.

Btw, when government takes tax money to maintain a project and they fail to maintain it, you're damned right it is government's responsibility for the damages.

I think this horse is not only dead, but unrecognizable pulp. I'm outta here as my point has been made.

Just remember this word: KARMA. Eventually, it bites us all in the ***.

 

[wishfulthinkin]

tell me ducklite...what would you have us do with the thousands of homeless people? send them to iraq to live in American gov't rebuilt neighborhoods that our tax dollars are also paying for?

Thank you LuvDuke...finally someone understands without criticism. I know I'm sounding a little frustrated and I am but not for myself. I know families who had 3 different insurance policies for wind, flood and hurricanes and each one justifies not paying. the wind won't pay because it was hurricane related....the flood won't pay because it was a storm surge...the hurricane won't pay because it was flood damage...its all a catch 22 and the insurance company wants to triple the price of premiums and haven't paid a cent. these are the crooks in the situation not us or the gov't. And the elderly that thought they would be able to live on retirement have to choose between food, medicine or insurance. what would you choose. and some of these people have lived in the same home for several generations its not like a summer home neighborhood. this storm was a freak of nature. and I hope that Florida or no other state ever has to go through what we have. I dearly love the people here. they are my people and they are strong. Those who can are rebuilding. the rest will probably sell to casinos and that is sad.

 

[ducklite]

First, get a clue. The people you look down your nose at ARE taxpayers.

Second, what part of flooding caused by storm surge which is caused by high winds do you not understand? There was no need for a separate flood policy as the damage was caused by high winds, which btw, is covered by a standard insurance policy.

Third, are you actually suggesting everyone should move away from any area that may have a potential to cause damage?

Geez, close up California that has those earthquakes.

Shut down the Midwest that has those tornadoes.

Get the hell out of Florida for the hurricanes. (this means you)

Oh no, move away from the Rockies and that potential avalanche problem.

Ooo, stay away from Washington state and that ornery Mt. St. Helens.

How ridiculous do you want to make this assuming it can even get more ridiculous than it already is?

Yanno what, people like you are so caught up in your own rhetoric, you don't even make sense.

Btw, when government takes tax money to maintain a project and they fail to maintain it, you're damned right it is government's responsibility for the damages.

I think this horse is not only dead, but unrecognizable pulp. I'm outta here as my point has been made.

Just remember this word: KARMA. Eventually, it bites us all in the ***.

First of all, storm surge is flooding. It doens't matter what the cause of teh flooding was, if the water comes in from "the bottom," it's considered flooding, if it comes in from the top it's not. So if the home was damaged by storm surge and the homeowner didn't ahve flood insurance, they are out of luck. Why should their mistake of not having a flood policy be anyone's responsibility but their own?

The majority of homes damaged by storm surge in AL, MS, and FL weren't protected by any levee system, so why would those people deserve anything from teh government for an act of God?

And if my home were damaged by whatever peril, I wouldn't expect the government to pay for it--unless it was hit by a runaway government truck or some other such thing. But I would never expect the government--and taxpayers--to reimburse me for an ACT OF GOD.

Yes, I live in Florida, but I live on a hill--240 feet above sea level, so flooding isn't a concern. I've got adequate insurance to pay for wind damage, less my $10K hurricane deductible, and have ample savings to cover that if need be.

I do'nt expect anyone to move. But I do expect people to understand that there are inherent risks to living just about anywhere. In my case lightning is a huge risk--which is why we have lightning rods and surge protectors. But if they failed, I sure as heck wouldn't expect the other taxpayers in the country to replace my electronics, or rebuild my home if it caught fire.

You still haven't answered my question. Do you really think that taxpayer dollars should go to rebuild private homes destroyed by acts of God? And if so, where do you draw the line? If a multi-million dollar home was damaged and undersinsured, shouldn't they get the same government benefits as the person living in the mobile home with three cents to their name? Where do you draw the line?

Anne

 

[ducklite]

tell me ducklite...what would you have us do with the thousands of homeless people? send them to iraq to live in American gov't rebuilt neighborhoods that our tax dollars are also paying for?

Unless they were a low income family living in government housing, then I don't understand why the government would have any responsibility to them. Have them do what anyone would do if they lost their home. Move in with relatives. Rent. Relocate to a new area. Do whatever it takes to get back on their feet. What's going on it the MIddle East has nothing to do with this (and BTW--I'm not a supporter of us being there at all. I've been a vocal critic of the "Stupid Bush" for as long as I can remember.)

Thank you LuvDuke...finally someone understands without criticism. I know I'm sounding a little frustrated and I am but not for myself. I know families who had 3 different insurance policies for wind, flood and hurricanes and each one justifies not paying. the wind won't pay because it was hurricane related.... the flood won't pay because it was a storm surge...[/the hurricane won't pay because it was flood damage...its all a catch 22 and the insurance company wants to triple the price of premiums and haven't paid a cent.

Then people didn't read the fine print to be sure they were adequately covered to begin with. Again, whose fault is that? Certainly not the rest of the taxpayers. For every one family with an insurance issue, there are hundreds who have gotten their claims paid and are rebuilding. What does that tell you? And for people in Florida pissing moaning about it, I have NO sympathy for those covered by Citizen's, because they aren't paying market rates for home owners insurance to begin with. If they truly believe that they have a valid claim that isn't being paid, take the companies to court. If they don' hae a valid claim because they didn't get the right coverage to begin with, that is their problem, and only their problem.

these are the crooks in the situation not us or the gov't. And the elderly that thought they would be able to live on retirement have to choose between food, medicine or insurance. what would you choose.

So now it's everyone's fault that people didn't properly plan for retierment? My mom is retired, she has savings, plus two pensions and Social Security. My in-laws are retired, and live off savings, a pension, and Social Security. Neither of them is constantly complaining about not being able to afford to live and being on a fixed income, because they SAVED while they were working, and PLANNED for their future.

and some of these people have lived in the same home for several generations its not like a summer home neighborhood. this storm was a freak of nature.

Because a home was in a family for generations doesn't mean a thing. This storm WASN'T a freak, it was something we should have all seen coming for years. If you live down South, hurricanes happen. It's NOT rocket science to figure that one out.

and I hope that Florida or no other state ever has to go through what we have. I dearly love the people here. they are my people and they are strong. Those who can are rebuilding. the rest will probably sell to casinos and that is sad.

Perhaps you have forgotten Hurricane Andrew. Or you are too self-involved to be bothered.

Anne

 

[wishfulthinkin]

I'll answer your question. If your home was struck by lightening and destroyed I would much rather my tax dollars go to you and helping you rebuild than go to supporting a welfare family or the war in iraq.

 

[ducklite]

I'll answer your question. If your home was struck by lightening and destroyed I would much rather my tax dollars go to you and helping you rebuild than go to supporting a welfare family or the war in iraq.

I would rather my money not go to ANY of the above. Tax dollars should be used for the good of ALL--that means to build schools, hospitals, libraries, civic centers, roads and bridges, and to protect with police, firefighters, ambulances, a military adequate to defend us and perhaps our closest allies--not the world.

But you are skewing the entire point, because I wouldn't ask for public dollars to repair my privately owned home. No one should.

Anne

 

[wishfulthinkin]

I'll answer your question:

if your home was struck by lightening and destroyed I would much rather my tax dollars go to you and helping you rebuild than to supporting a welfare family or the war in iraq.

as for being selfish...yes I am and I've been forced to be that was these past few months. when you are helping others to recover sometimes nice just doesn't cut it

 

[arminnie]

Anne - Thank you again for ALL of the work you have done to help since Katrina. I know the personal effort and sacrifices that you have made and appreciate it.

It's a very difficult time, and people's emotions are running high often with a dose of bitterness thrown in.

I have personally been through Betsy (1965 hurricane) and Katrina. I have also been through a tornado in Houston (1978) and an earthquake (San Francisco 1989). Plus I've been through a devastating drop in the economy in Texas in the 80s that wiped out my lifetime savings (in my 40s).

But those are just material things. I've had close relatives brutally assaulted and involved in horrible accidents (left in a near vegetative state for over 20 years now).

There are times that I've wanted to scream and cry "Why me?" but the answer is to just pick up the pieces and go on. Some people learn to do that quicker than others.

Many people's lives have been changed forever. I do feel sorry for people that I see who are just not able to come to terms with it, and keep demanding that things be put back the way they were. It's just not possible.

I feel so sorry for people that have lost loved ones. But the "stuff" is just "stuff".

 

[RitaZ.]

And for people in Florida pissing moaning about it, I have NO sympathy for those covered by Citizen's, because they aren't paying market rates for home owners insurance to begin with.

As of right now, Citizens is the second largest insurer in FL. When we bought our current home in 1996, we had to sign up with JUA (now Citizens) because no other companies were issuing/writing any homeowner ins. policies. Our rates with JUA were much higher than what we've paid since our policy was sold to a private insurer. We were with JUA for one year. Our rates now are still less than what we paid JUA in 1996, but almost at the same level. I'm certain that we'll see a huge increase when our policy is renewed in Sept. Homeowners that have to have Citizens aren't in it by choice, they have no other choice and their rates are higher.

BTW, I wanted to add that, by law, Citizens rates have to be higher than those of traditional insurance companies. The reason for that is to prevent competition with private companies because, as we all know, Citizens it's supposed to be the insurer of last resort.

 

[zipuzee]

You still haven't answered my question. Do you really think that taxpayer dollars should go to rebuild private homes destroyed by acts of God? And if so, where do you draw the line? If a multi-million dollar home was damaged and undersinsured, shouldn't they get the same government benefits as the person living in the mobile home with three cents to their name? Where do you draw the line?

Anne

I jumping into this mess for one reason: For the record, the nine feet of flood water that destroyed my house was NOT CAUSED BY AN ACT OF GOD. The levees failed because they were not built properly. The Army Corp of Engineers has admitted that. Now, since that is a government agency, shouldn't they at least help make it right?? And also for the record, I have not registered for the federal money and am not sure I will.

 

[annegal]

Amen...zipuzee.

I think most people are unaware of that fact.

 

[ducklite]

As of right now, Citizens is the second largest insurer in FL. When we bought our current home in 1996, we had to sign up with JUA (now Citizens) because no other companies were issuing/writing any homeowner ins. policies. Our rates with JUA were much higher than what we've paid since our policy was sold to a private insurer. We were with JUA for one year. Our rates now are still less than what we paid JUA in 1996, but almost at the same level. I'm certain that we'll see a huge increase when our policy is renewed in Sept. Homeowners that have to have Citizens aren't in it by choice, they have no other choice and their rates are higher.

BTW, I wanted to add that, by law, Citizens rates have to be higher than those of traditional insurance companies. The reason for that is to prevent competition with private companies because, as we all know, Citizens it's supposed to be the insurer of last resort.

That's all well and good, but you STILL AREN'T PAYING MARKET RATES! If you were, there wouldn't be a surcharge being passed on to everyone else to cover Citizen's losses. The rest of the state who has private insurance is subsidizing your homeownership.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

I jumping into this mess for one reason: For the record, the nine feet of flood water that destroyed my house was NOT CAUSED BY AN ACT OF GOD. The levees failed because they were not built properly. The Army Corp of Engineers has admitted that. Now, since that is a government agency, shouldn't they at least help make it right?? And also for the record, I have not registered for the federal money and am not sure I will.

You lived in a flood zone, you should have had flood insurance. Not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp. Regardless of why your home was flooded, did you make an effort to mitigate your damages by purcahsing flood insurance?

Perhaps IF there's solid proof that the flooding was caused by deficient engineering, the government owes people ONLY what would be over and above coverage limits they would have had if they had a flood policy. But if you lived anywhere that you relied on a levee to keep your home from flooding and didn't purchase flood insurance, so sad, too bad.

Anne

 

[LuvDuke]

Amen...zipuzee.

I think most people are unaware of that fact.

Au contraire. They're aware of it and they don't give a crap because it doesn't jive with their "armchair general" personal responsibility agenda.

 

[ducklite]

Au contraire. They're aware of it and they don't give a crap because it doesn't jive with their "armchair general" personal responsibility agenda.

If you live in an area near a large body of water and are at, below, or slightly above sea level, and require a levee system to keep your home from flooding, it's not rocket science to figure out you should have flood insurance. I'm not sure why that concept is so foreign.

ANne

 

[RitaZ.]

That's all well and good, but you STILL AREN'T PAYING MARKET RATES! If you were, there wouldn't be a surcharge being passed on to everyone else to cover Citizen's losses. The rest of the state who has private insurance is subsidizing your homeownership.

Anne

Well, I guess the law is wrong and you're right! No point trying to debate it since you appear to know it all. Aren't you tired of being "right" all the time? I have private insurance, so I'm not sure who your refers to.

Who knows, maybe one day your private insurer will drop your policy, like it's happened to many hard working and decent Floridians and you'll find yourself with the "moaners" that have Citizens. Enjoy your day!

 

[zipuzee]

You lived in a flood zone, you should have had flood insurance. Not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp. Regardless of why your home was flooded, did you make an effort to mitigate your damages by purcahsing flood insurance?

Perhaps IF there's solid proof that the flooding was caused by deficient engineering, the government owes people ONLY what would be over and above coverage limits they would have had if they had a flood policy. But if you lived anywhere that you relied on a levee to keep your home from flooding and didn't purchase flood insurance, so sad, too bad.

Anne

I never stated that I did not have flood insurance. And there IS solid proof, reams of it. The gov't shouldn't be taken for a ride. I just want to be made whole. Before Katrina, I had NO house note, it was paid off; now I need to take a mortgage of 169,000.

 

[ducklite]

Well, I guess the law is wrong and you're right! No point trying to debate it since you appear to know it all. Aren't you tired of being "right" all the time? I have private insurance, so I'm not sure who your refers to.

Who knows, maybe one day your private insurer will drop your policy, like it's happened to many hard working and decent Floridians and you'll find yourself with the "moaners" that have Citizens. Enjoy your day!

The "You and Yours" are rhetorical. The way your post is worded it appears taht you are insured by Citizen's. My comments are not meant towards any one person, but everyone insured by Citizen's.

Those who are insured through Citizen's are not paying full market rates for their insurance. Market rates would cover the cost of doing business as well as any losses that the company incurred. Because the State of Florida is surcharging anyone with a homeowners policy in the state of Florida to cover Citizen's losses, whether the person is insured by Citizen's or not, in effect those covered by Citizen's are paying subsidized, or below market, rates.

Why is every homeowner in the state paying for welfare to bail out those who can not get insurance through private sources, due to where they choose to live?

Citizen's insured's, and Citizen's losses are not my problem. And frankly unless every insurer in the state pulls out, I highly doubt I'll ever have a problem finding insurance. I live in a newly constructed home built above building code requirements, no where near water other than a water trap about 200 feet away and 12 feet lower in elevation on a golf course, 240 feet above sea level, and more than 50 miles inland from any coastal area.

I get solicited on a regular basis by companies offering to insure my home, from lower end mass market carriers to high end specialty carriers.

Bottom line, the entire state shouldn't be subsidizing Citizen's. The entire cost of doing business, including paying for losses needs to be borne by those insured by the plan, and only those insured by the plan. Otherwise the insurance industry in the State of Florida is draconian socialism at work, nothing more.

Anne

 

[RitaZ.]

Anne~ Evidently, you didn't read my initial post thoroughly, perhaps you were too eager to reply to tell me how wrong I am.

Again, you know everything and your life is perfectly planned. There is no point in adding anything else to your extensive fountain of knowledge.