Katrina
August 28th, 2006 | by Jersey McJones |Here we are, one year removed from hurricane Katrina, New Orleans still looks like post-A-bomb Hiroshima, insurance companies still haven’t paid out more than a pittance (and the government is doing nothing to help with that), and people still argue over who and what is to blame.
A couple of points here:
1: No one should have been surprised that the poor, corrupt, inept, state of Louisiana failed it’s locals - everyone should be shocked that the post-9/11 federal government failed them. As of now, according to an AP-Ipsos poll, 57% of Americans believe we are unprepared for another disaster. Only a third believe Bush handled the disater well. So much for “Homeland Security.”
2: Does anyone still believe that there is a profitable way for the private insurance sector to insure for major disasters? I don’t. There is an insurance crisis in the Gulf States. The courts, thus far, seem to agree with the insurance companies that flooding and high winds have nothing to do with hurricanes. Thousands of people, a full year later, still haven’t received their insurance recompense. It’s time we have federal and state funds for emergencies, just as regular folks like me do for our little homesteads. Private insurance should be cut out of the distaster picture entirely. They have failed and are useless and would be unprofitable if they were anything but useless failures.
JMJ
7 Responses to “Katrina”
By landcomm1 on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
I read a story - posted at MSNBC - about the increased cost of homeowner’s insurance in the Big Easy. Even the wealthy cannot afford it. Yet another reason this city may be doomed. As a nation we have failed this city and its inhabitants. Our system of insurance is ruthless and is - among other reasons - why more people cannot afford their own homes. What a crock.
By Jersey McJones on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
There is a time for private insurance and a time for emergency funds. Liability insurance - that which covers the effects of your actions (like aggressive driving or forgetting to shovel your sidewalk) - should be private. Life insurance - that which also covers the effects of your actions (like whther you take care of yourself or not and whether you want to provide for your family just in case) - should be private. But health is not an option. Disaster is not an option. These things should be public.
JMJ
By ken grandlund on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
I ranted about the insurance industry a while back. Here is the link if you’d like to read it:
http://4commonsensenow.blogspot.com/2005/08/does-your-insurance-cover-that.html
By and large, they run a pretty good scam, and the government and financial industry help keep them in business by mandating you have insurance for certain things. Of course collecting a payout is a whole other problem.
As for federal insurance to rebuild disaster zones, I’m on the fence about that. I agree that people should have help to rebuild their lives in the face of natural disaster, but how many times should the public funds be used to rebuild areas that are perpetually prone to disaster?
But all in all, the insurance industry is more than willing to take our premiums but very resistant to paying off claims. And that, to me, is a crime. What good is an insurance policy that has so many industry outs and so few consumer benefits?
By Jersey McJones on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Good read, Ken. And I agree that the federal gov’t should not insure for all disasters. It’s not fair to have taxpayors in Montana paying for hurricanes in Florida - well, not entirely, anyway. States that have a specific disposition to certain types of disaster should have to raise funds via the sales tax (perfect for Florida, Hawaii and California, what with all the tourists) or the income tax (perfect for states like Alabama and Louisiana) and Texas, with no income tax can go fuck itself. ;) Just kidding. But states that have a commonly known and accepted propensity for disasters should have to fund for them - and that the only the feds can do.
I would again add this: we should seperate liability insurance, which should be private though regulated, from emergency, which should be guarenteed and universal.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 28, 2006 | Reply
Jersey,
“States that have a specific disposition to certain types of disaster should have to raise funds via the sales tax … or the income tax … But states that have a commonly known and accepted propensity for disasters should have to fund for them - and that the only the feds can do.”
I’m unclear about what the distinction between “States that have a specific disposition to certain types of disaster” which should have to raise their own funds through state taxes and “states that have a commonly known and accepted propensity for disasters” which only the feds can fund. You choose to live under sea-level in an area subject to hurricanes and it’s the fed’s responsibility but you choose to live on a fault line in California and it’s up to the state? I don’t get the distinction.
By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Craig,
I think Jersey is saying only the Feds can mandate the states to do this, rather than fund it. At least,that’s how I read the post.
By Jersey McJones on Aug 29, 2006 | Reply
Right Paul. Here’s an idea - matching funds. Mandate that the states with accepted predispositions for certain types of disasters fund for those disasters and the Feds will match the funds - FUNDED mandates.
JMJ