Posted on 03/22/2006 3:01:44 PM PST by Cboldt
They should remember New Orleans...
There you go. Insead of paying for living in CA, with ALL that that involves, he's decided to let US pay part of his expenses. What a guy!
The Katrina "victims" are demanding that insurance companies pay whether they had coverage or not.
I can't speak for other California homeowners, but my wife and I have little choice but TO buy the insurance: we live in a condo complex with a mandatory rebuild requirement.
Many homeowners are already struggling with some of the highest housing prices in the country.
Matthew Park, an information technology manager who owns a home in Corte Madera, across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, decided against quake insurance. ''The deductible is ridiculously high, to the point where the level of protection you actually receive is anemic," he said
A 75,000 deductible? You would have to buy another policy to cover the deductible.
If they get free, dang near unlimited $$$ for NOLA, then it is only fair they do the same for us next time.
At least now we know to play the game...
"But for many others, the billions of dollars in federal aid pouring into the Gulf Coast merely bolstered a sense that the government would come to the rescue after a big earthquake."
It is this attitude which has turned my state into the liberal hell hole it is. And when a destructive quake hits, these people will be the first to bitch that "Bush isn't doing enough" when their homes and lives aren't instantly rebuilt because they choose to rely on nanny government instead of buying insurance themselves. I wish the federal government would put out a directive that they will not provide relief payments for people above certain income levels who could have and should have furnished themselves with earthquake insurance. And "I preferred to spend my money on another SUV, jet skis or on expensive dinners instead" should in no way be an excuse. Just as the government doesn't pay to rebuild your car if you're in an accident and didn't provide yourself with car insurance, why should taxpayers pay to rebuild your home when you could have afforded to purchase earthquake insurance?
You know, reading the article, the yearly premiums compared to house values for the quake insurance actually aren't as high as I was expecting; I don't live in a quake area, but I've read all the hazard stuff, a lot of scientific papers, and really compared to the risk, the premiums are a bargain.
The deductibles are a bit high.
Man people really don't understand the risk. They don't understand that the last 50 years or so in both the SF Bay area and LA have had less activity than normal.
Hazard and risk are fundamentally different. Hazard is a phenomenon that has potential to cause harm. Phenomena are both natural and man-made. For example, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods are natural hazards; whereas car crashes, chemical spills, train derailments, and terror attacks are man-made hazards. Risk , on the other hand, is the likelihood (chance) of harm if someone or something is exposed to a hazard, and generally quantified by three terms: likelihood (chance), a level of hazard (loss), and exposure (time). For example, in health sciences, risk can be defined as the likelihood (probability) of getting cancer if an average daily dose of a hazardous substance (hazard level) is taken over a 70-year lifetime (exposure). In the financial world, risk can be the probability of losing a certain amount of money (loss) over a period. Seismic hazard and risk are also fundamentally different and commonly defined as:
Seismic Hazard: Earthquakes of a certain magnitude or the phenomena generated by the earthquakes, such as surface rupture, ground motion , ground-motion amplification , liquefaction , and induced-landslides, that have potential to cause harm.
Seismic Risk: Likelihood (chance) of experiencing a level of seismic hazard for a given exposure (time and asset).
Yes, they should.
If Katrina is any indication, they'd be better off banking the money for future repairs because the insurance companies don't want to pay off on policies.
From New Orleans to the Gulf Coast, insurance companies are doing everything they can to avoid paying policy holders. It seems they like the idea of GETTING those premium $$, but never seriously considered paying off on claims.
Disaster insurance that PAYS you if a disaster strikes!?? What a concept!
That has a different meaning in the San Francisco area. On average.
After the 1906 earthquake, the insurance companies refused to pay, saying they were unable to pay out so much.
(That's why a lot of the damage there was attributed to "fire", which did pay out).
Most California homeowners know that in the event of a billion-dollar sized quake, the companies will probably bail once again.
So why pay $2500 a year for insurance, with a $50,000 deductable, when it won't help you in any case?
But the point remains - why pay for earthquake insurance (like flood insurance) when the Feds will come to the rescue even if you don't have the insurance?
The Federal Government is not suppose to be in the insurance business. Yet the feds over the years have found ways to be the default fall-back insurer for so many risks- from natural disasters, to poor business decisions and investments, to retirement income, to health care, to whatever... You have a "need" the federal government has a "plan" for you.
But even more sickening - often those who most "qualify" for those government programs don't get it, or have to appeal (thus spending time and money they don't have) to get the benefits they qualify for.
Well, going without is still a recipe for disaster. What if the event isn't big enough to attract national attention, but is big enough to nail your home? If they can afford it, they should shop around and just get the darn insurance.
Why did I know that was coming.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Income levels should make no difference. Why should we the people pay for anyone's failure to insure when it comes to owning property regardless of the disaster? There is such a thing as rental insurance for those who don't own to cover their household items. Most poor don't own they rent and for those that own--it is a cost of owning property--PERIOD. A gamble you take if you own and are uninsured.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Sue, the article tends to tell people not to depend on a government bailout. However, real life tells us that people organized in a Katrina-like mass can easily manipulate government into spending billions, so why spend money on insurance... especially when you've got the largest contingent of congressmen in the country. Most people in California hurt by an earthquake will be women and minorities, too - they're the majority, after all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.