Federal disaster relief

[kak17]

Nobody likes to see humans' homes and lives destroyed by natural disasters but it's about time we start using our heads. People who choose to live in high risk areas should have to pay for that risk themselves. It is well known that every year around this time Florida is vulnerable to hurricanes. By having the government bail out victims with federal tax dollars makes it easier for these people to rebuild their homes in the same area where such natural disasters occur frequently. Anyone else see something wrong with this?

[The once and future king]

"Nobody likes to see humans' homes and lives destroyed by natural disasters "

Tell that to Ming the Merciless.

[elwoodblues]

I agree. Maybe we should limit disaster relief to the first time. After that, well you assumed the risk.

[Ray Zee]

the problem is that politicians dole out the money.=votes.
those areas need to have all underground utilities and strict building codes for a start.
but how can you really not give aid to a part of the country that is in ruins.

[nicky g]

Can you get insurance against hurricaine damage?

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you get insurance against hurricaine damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many traditional insurance companies have begun to balk at offering coverage in areas prone to hurricanes. But high risk insurers like Lloyd's of London will write policies, albeit at high premiums. There is a difference between providing disaster relief (Temporary shleter, food, medicine) and having the taxpayers rebuild private property every time the wind blows through. As previously stated, people continue to build homes in high risk areas simply because they know the govt will help them rebuild. If people knew the govt would not bail them out, they might pony up the extra bucks when building their homes to make them as hurricane proof as possible, instead of using cheaper materials. More expensive up front, but would no doubt save money in the long run.

[kak17]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem is that politicians dole out the money.=votes.
but how can you really not give aid to a part of the country that is in ruins.

[/ QUOTE ]


1) I agree. President Bush would be committing political suicide if he denied disaster relief

2) I'm suggesting that the money could just as easily come from the private sector (insurance companies). Most people wouldn't be able to afford the high rates, thus causing them to move to less risky areas of the country. Net result: less lives lost and less property damage.

[kak17]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you get insurance against hurricaine damage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many traditional insurance companies have begun to balk at offering coverage in areas prone to hurricanes. But high risk insurers like Lloyd's of London will write policies, albeit at high premiums. There is a difference between providing disaster relief (Temporary shleter, food, medicine) and having the taxpayers rebuild private property every time the wind blows through. As previously stated, people continue to build homes in high risk areas simply because they know the govt will help them rebuild. If people knew the govt would not bail them out, they might pony up the extra bucks when building their homes to make them as hurricane proof as possible, instead of using cheaper materials. More expensive up front, but would no doubt save money in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for helping prove my point.