Politics and Disaster?

"Obama (Uncle Sam? IOW - "John Q Taxpayer @ 53%") has their backs."

Obama tours destruction in Oklahoma, vows nation 'has your back' - U.S. News


At what point does total destruction of your property from outside sources turn from your responsibility as a property owner (insurance) to the taxpayers picking up the pieces?

Not trying to be-little the troubles that Katrina, Sandy, KC '99, or Moore '13 victims have had to endure in any way. But if one house and pig barn was hit by a tornado, who is going to pick up the tab if they don't have insurance? What about the 1000 acres of corn that gets torn up when it does miss the big towns?
(Or the 107 acres of tomatoes that my family lost in '75 w/no insurance. Maybe we should petition for late payment?)

The only place to buy flood ins is the US Gov (or so I am told) so I understand why that is a Gov issue. How is it that anything else is handled on a sliding scale? If 200 of your neighbors lost their houses for whatever reason - then the rest of us will pick up the tab - at least to some degree - if you gambled with insurance premiums - so that you don't have to start over with naught?

On that same note - I have one customer in that area that I pinged a few days ago - and have yet to get a response. He is usually Johnny On the Spot... Maybe he was just on vacation last week?

-------------------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

The point at which it makes good political sense I guess.

There's been a bunch of talk and changes with insurance companies the last couple years here, limits of what they'll insure for flooding, some stuff canceled entirely, and premiums raised for pretty much everyone cause insuring people was hurting the bottom line. Then there's the times where nobody wants to pay on either side... been a fair bit of that around here.

One thing I also learned... if your house is paid for, premiums are lower than if you have a mortgage. Using my total faith in that industry's way of doing things, all I can figure is that its because if something happens they figure they're more likely to wiggle out of paying or be able to deal for the least possible give out as always, than if the bank wants their $$ too.


Sometimes I think the only difference between the Mafia and Insurance(or gov eh), is you could trust the Mafia to do what they said they would.

I think that reasonably, there are times when the public should NOT bail folks out. For example, who
paid for that carnival cruise ship rescue, who put their lives on the line towning that mess back to FL?

The cruise company's done this before, short staffed their ships and scrimped on maint. only to have
to beg the coast guard to rescue them. Carnival should pay and pay dearly for doing this.

Then we have the texas fertilizer company that broke the law and blew up the town. They should pay
for the destruction they caused, in real dollars.

Now we have a bridge in WA state that is collapsed by a tar sands company truck that smashes into it.
If that's how they treat public property then I'm starting to re-think this whole pipeline issue. Maybe they
should put up a bond, equal in value to ALL the property the pipeline runs through?

Betcha nickel they won't pay for the bridge they destroyed, and for the inconvenience of all the citizens.

jim rozen said:

who put their lives on the line towing that mess back to FL?

Click to expand...

That's a little dramatic don't'cha think?

Alabama BTW, but that's not the point anyway...


-----------------

Think Snow Eh!
Ox

That whole ship towing home deal falls under maritime law that says the closest ship will assist an distress call, as I read that cruise line has done similar rescues for other US based ships so it was a favor returned so to speak---

"...That's a little dramatic don't'cha think?..."

Nope. If it was so mundane why did the media cover the shit out of it?

I heard the first setup had the tow hawser part under strain. That's
about as dramatic as you can get.

Folks don't get this - anytime the coast guard puts helicopter crews in the
air, those folks are absolutely at risk of their lives. Those things don't fly.
They're so ugly the ground repels them.

Helicopters have 750 hp turbine engines powering the rotors through a reduction
gearbox that's barely held together by spit and chewing gum. No. This is not
a mundane, sit-at-the-desk job. If you think it is, then I invite you to try out for
it.

And that "government bail me out when I'm in a pickle, but otherwise I'm not
paying my taxes" is nothing more than a teabagger bullshit story. The carnival
ships are flying flags other than the US because they don't want to pay for their
own, repeated bailouts. They're scum, plain and simple.

Funny how politicians seem to think their job is looking concerned in the post-mortem hearings, rather than planning to limit losses from foreseeable problems in the first place.

That said, we have a pretty good disaster relief system compared to poorer nations. Seems to me there are at least five levels of disaster relief in this country:

1) First bits, performed by police, fire, National Guard, volunteers, etc., are to save lives, put a temporary roof over peoples' heads, prevent looting . . . pretty much immediate response sort of things. Some of it paid by taxes, some of it by the good graces of neighbors and volunteers pitching in. When the '89 quake hit here, it was a combination of neighbors helping neighbors; and police and fire and medical services doing what they could. The bigger the disaster (each years' forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes . . .) the more local, state, and federal agencies share the load in a reciprocal aid understanding. This part has seemed to work pretty well, most places. Cuts to staff (wildland fire fighting here in California) are an increasing concern.

2) Then there are at least two kinds of work to restore losses. Public infrastructure losses get paid out of public funds -- ultimately by us as taxpayers. Private property losses mostly get paid out of our insurance. In our case it was a State Farm policy that paid to replace broken glass, drywall popped off the studs, stairwells collapsed in the '89 quake. In my limited experience (that quake), both communities and private insurers did pretty well.

3) Since there are still often a bunch of people still devastated, various low cost loan programs are often offered by various agencies. Most folks are still paying, but on friendlier terms. In a way, cities and states might see such programs as a good investment -- since they get people back to working in the area (and paying taxes). Screw this part up, and the chances of leaving behind a ghost town are greater. Another way to screw this up is to let it be gamed.

4) Sometimes there's someone clearly at fault besides Mother Nature (say in the BP / Gulf oil screw up) and it may take a heavy hand to get those responsible to make restitution. Sometimes the government does this pretty well. Sometimes they let the crooks off lightly.

5) Finally, there may be some combination of broader citizen help and, often enough, political grandstanding. So we get humanitarian aid sent round the world, citizens donating to funds, and the like.

Anyhow, as Ox suggests, a single person suffering a non-life-threatening loss isn't going to get #1, they may have insurance for #2, no one except their famiily, friends, and neighbors are going to put a special #3 program together for their personal disaster, they may get some help if their are crooks and courts involved (#4), and they just might get limited humanitarian help (#5) if a buddy puts up a tomato relief fund (in the Ox's family example). Hard for me to see all of that changing much -- except maybe to better regulate rogue insurance companies and to make sure people understand (and assume) the risks they take.

I'm pretty sure we can look forward to more frequent and larger disasters in the years to come. Part of this is just more people, living closer together, in less resilient communities. Another part is aging infrastructure -- and people building new infrastructure on the cheap. Climate instability adds to this, as do people thinking they have a right to live perilously and then be bailed out (say, when their $3 million beach/river house gets washed away).

What would be really nice is to have politicians show up regularly and talk about sensible measures to plan ahead and reduce the impact of likely disasters.

PeteM said:

What would be really nice is to have politicians show up regularly and talk about sensible measures to plan ahead and reduce the impact of likely disasters.

Click to expand...

What gets me about this is that it hit a school, so who made a decision not to put a storm shelter inside the school?
Would that mean that all OK schools need a storm shelter? would that mean paying to have them fitted/retro-fitted, finally you'll end up with
some grandstanding teabagger screaming 'i aint payin no mur taxes, vote for me and neither will you' and thus the bridge does'nt get replaced, the road not repaired, the storm shelters not built
etc etc etc until someone notices the country has just collapsed around them.

What should be done is name and shame the politicians who block these sort of infrastructure plans...eg "your children died as a result of Joe Scummy fillibusting the tax level debate 3 years ago
and getting the storm shelter program cancelled for the next 5 years"

Boris

"we've got our fair share of a**hole politicians over here too"

Oohh... top-notch post, there, wordingham. Top-notch.

In other news, jim rozen wrote: "Nope. If it was so mundane why did the media cover the shit out of it?"

Answer: because it was covered in shit.

But to Ox's point... some is grandstanding, but some is community/regional cheerleading and motivation/leadership. The line between the two is often "gerrymandered" depending on the reporter, the reportee, and the current economic and political and... well, climate, climate.

Chip

Don't worry, Ox- if ol' bammie "has their backs" the same way he "had the backs" of the Consulate in Benghazi- we (the taxpayer) won't be paying for a damn thing.

jim rozen said:

teabagger bullshit story.

Click to expand...

So now your joining in with the IRS huh. Maybe adversary destruction is the new norm.

"Answer: because it was covered in shit."

Lol. Yeah I guess you just confirmed what most of us know about the news
business. Shit sells. Quite true.

Or, rather, rich folks who have to live in shit-stained hallways for a while,
that evokes a certain shadenfeud in the peons. Nobody's in a hurry to
go to india and take photos of folks covered in shit because it's not news.

Rich folks on a cruise, having to endure a day or two of conditions like that: News!

I'd rather have seen more detailes of that tow rope that parted under strain.

Folks who work for the coast guard, big brass ones. There's a reason that
some of the first effective aid in new orleans came from them.

Reverse Darwinism

moonlight machine said:

Most people with a mortgage pay the insurance monthly, it is buried in the monthly payment, I bet 95% have no idea what their ins. costs. Makes it pretty easy for the ins. co to make a bit extra.

Click to expand...

Interesting, never heard of that up here. They usually do include the property taxes in the mortgage though. I've always gotten all insurance bills for everything on their own.



That said I have very little pity for people I see on the news every year watching their house float away or swimming in their living room. Freak flood once, ok, but every year, build for it people...

Boris said:

What gets me about this is that it hit a school, so who made a decision not to put a storm shelter inside the school?
Would that mean that all OK schools need a storm shelter? would that mean paying to have them fitted/retro-fitted, finally you'll end up with
some grandstanding teabagger screaming 'i aint payin no mur taxes, vote for me and neither will you' and thus the bridge does'nt get replaced, the road not repaired, the storm shelters not built
etc etc etc until someone notices the country has just collapsed around them.

What should be done is name and shame the politicians who block these sort of infrastructure plans...eg "your children died as a result of Joe Scummy fillibusting the tax level debate 3 years ago
and getting the storm shelter program cancelled for the next 5 years"

Boris

"we've got our fair share of a**hole politicians over here too"

Click to expand...

So the leftists using public money to buy votes with entitlement programs instead of infastructure spending is OK? It's only bad when the Teaparty does it? Come visit oregon, We've got plenty of "wise" democrats in office. Hopefully you only need to get your car re-aligned once while you're here. I also wouldn't recommend getting stuck in traffic on any of the bridges in the area!

Here in CT, taxpayers will be picking up the tab to rebuild beach houses of the rich and famous. If the government said "hey, you put is there in harms way - you rebuild it", then these things would either not get built, people would assume the risk, or they would pay the appropriate market rate for insurance.

The cruise line is a good example, but you have all sorts of people / organizations that do risky stuff and expect the taxpayers to pick up the tab for bailing them out. I don't see a lot of difference between someone climbing Mount McKinley and expecting everyone to pay for his rescue and someone that builds a house on the side of a cliff in a California fire, earthquake and mudslide zone and wants everyone else to assume the risk.

I'm for making people bear the full costs. In the case of shared infrastructure (e.g. schools, highways), costs should be at the level of the entity owning or administering it - schools by the municipality, interstate highways by the feds.

The problem going forward is that the government has been doing this so long that people have come to expect it and now you have all sorts of stuff built where the actual costs are not borne by the owners.

It would be morally wrong to cut these people off at the knees because of people that set this stuff up long before they may have even owned the property.

If we were to revert the costs back to the owners and not society, we would need to do it gradually, probably over generations.

Steve

"It would be morally wrong to cut these people off at the knees because of people that set this stuff up long before they may have even owned the property."

Respectfully disagree. At all financial levels in society today, the story is "that was then, this
is now." Private sector, public sector.

Costs are being cut and programs are being cancelled. The name of the game is, if you're not
paying for it, you're not getting it. I think honestly is major US corporations can simply say,
your pension that we promised you just vanished into thin air so we can boost our CEO's
bonus, then cutting off folks with beach houses at the knees because their second vacation
home might fall into the beach they enjoy, is simply par for the course.

That was then, this is now. All promises null and void. This includes ones made to the
rich guys.

All I know is that I'm glad I'm not the one who had to make the decision to exclude a shelter from that building.

jim rozen said:

...cutting off folks with beach houses at the knees because their second vacation
home might fall into the beach they enjoy, is simply par for the course.

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that, but there are whole towns full of everyday middle American folks that are in the paths of stuff like the Oklahoma tornadoes, and it will take longer to move from federal government support to local support.

Years ago, I used to say that we in the northeast had to pay for everyone else's tornadoes, mudslides, floods and earthquakes, but they didn't have to pay for our snowstorms, but even that's changed.

Steve