I would support that if they'd support earthquake insurance for me. It's freaking expensive if you can even find anyone who offers it out here. Stupid federal government making me pay for other people's stupid location specific environmental hazards.

ALICE, I TOLD YOU TO LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!

I can't sleep. Please help me...

With all due respect to Barack and Hillary, if an insurance company supports it as a good idea, I say no. Insurance companies crapped out on people after Hurricane Andrew, they got bailed out after 9/11, they crapped out on a lot of people after Katrina - I say overhaul, regulate and monitor the insurance industry more closely. I hate'em.

insurance may seem nice at the time, but when the sh!t hits the fan thats when the insurance company bail out. Or try to spend as little as possible.

Insurance companies are private businesses and as such I typically oppose help for them. However, following Katrina I know at least one major carrier almost went under because their property losses exceeded their reinsurance. But this seems to be more about protecting private companies than helping people who wouldn't have their claims paid because the carrier doesn't have the money. Although I don't know how Florida works specifically, usually a state guaranty fund should assist in that case. The problem is that for hurricane and earthquake insurance many times standard carriers won't touch it so you have go to a surplus lines market, which isn't backed up by that. I could support something to pay losses not covered by the state fund in the case of surplus lines carriers, but I just don't see the need for standard carriers. If this was about protecting policy holders then I'd be for it, but it appears not to be.

And by the way, a lot of the complaining after Katrina about insurance companies not paying claims turned out to be homeowners not even buying the coverage! Yes insurance companies screw people and pay less than they should, but come one. If you don't buy hurricane coverage then you are an idiot to expect to be paid for hurricane damages.

I like MM's statement:
If you don't buy hurricane coverage then you are an idiot to expect to be paid for hurricane damages.

As a taxpayer, I'd prefer not to pay for hurricane insurance, although I live just inland enough to still get some violent weather. But in the case of a severe disaster such as Katrina, my heart would wish to support them, and my mind thinks it's a good idea too. If something like Katrina happened again, but we were able to keep the situation from disintegrating and stagnating as it did before, I'd be all for helping. I tend to think that letting one big chunk of the nation be destroyed and nonfunctional for months is not beneficial to the rest of the nation economically.

I don't think helping out the insurance companies is the way to do it though. I think that so much was given to charities after Katrina that could have done so much good, but our country's disaster response was so horrible! I think that the department that handles that should be given an overhaul instead!

m2, is that true? what's the source for that katrina insurance fact?

btw, I know some people didn't have FLOOD insurance, and so they thought their coverage would cover the damages from the hurricane, but because of the inept Army Corp of Engineer's levees breaking, their houses flooded, which meant that it was "flood damage" and not "hurricane damage" meaning their insurance wouldn't cover it unless you had both types of insurance. Which, I believe, is unfortunate.

I see people constantly putting the bottom dollar over coverage. It amazes me how these same people who complained about me wanting them to pay an extra $15 dollars to be completely covered, are the same people who complain that they aren't completely covered.

I don't like the idea of nationalizing hurrucane insurance. I have yet to have a hurricane where I live, and that's one reason I moved there. I have yet to have a serious earthquake, so I don't need to help someone else pay for that. Why is it this country feels the need to ask someone else pay for something they need, simply because they don't want to pay for it?

The insurance companies denied a ton of claims not so much because of the volume of claims (they issued the policies -- they knew the potential fall out) -- it has a lot more to do with them making bad investments and not getting the returns they expected. Then, surprise surprise... what a number crunching analyst somewhere likely told them was the "absolute worst case scenario" was the reality they faced.

As devastating as Katrina was, don't forget the Gulf Coast of Florida -- last time I drove over into Louisiana (wasn't that long ago -- within the last 6-7 months), there were still color-coded tarps on people's roofs. The insurance companies use different colors to track which hurricane caused the damage to the roof -- some of the damage dates back to 2006.

On another note, I have a professor who is a med-mal lawyer in FL (meaning... he's pretty familiar with a number of lawyers who really and truly have zero shame) and his parents' house was destroyed in one of the storms. Like they've done to many other people, a major insurance carrier denied their claim. He tried to be nice and work with them, but ended up filing suit against them. This man who deals with, well, let's call them "ambitious" lawyers on a daily basis was absolutely floored by the tactics they were using in court. For him to even be rattled by something like that is pretty significant -- and I can't imagine what it must do to people and families who have little to no experience with the legal system.

This doesn't answer the question in any way... ultimately, SOMETHING needs to be done, but I'm not so sure that nationalization is the answer.

At a national level, the federal government should offer limited aid to states that are investigating and regulating insurance company practices within their own state (for instance, Allstate wouldn't comply with subpoenas from FL Insurance Regulators -- and the courts froze their ability to write ANY new policies for ANYTHING in FL until they complied -- they're now cooperating) I need to go find caffeine before I try to think and/or articulate anymore this morning.

and... what undave said is so ridiculously true. as is syako's second comment. but... I think the two actually really go hand in hand. a lot of people (especially in LA and Miss.) didn't have flood insurance included in their homeowner's insurance because of the additional cost.

now, caffeine.

Here in Florida, people buy property insurance for their homes. The risk is too great. Although I lived in an area that went without any serious storms for decades, we had one bad year in 2004 with 2 terrible storms hitting us dead-on.

The insurance premiums are outrageous (and even more so now after 1 or 2 bad years with storms). The last few years saw the smaller insurance companies put out of business and nearly all of the major ones either completely dropping all of their Florida policies or charging an unbelievably high premium. The state moved quickly to figure out a solution and called the insurance companies to task. Regardless, the state of property insurance is still precarious in Florida. But I think this rewards insurance companies more than the policyholders themselves - if only we lived in a perfect world where government oversight actually worked!

I think I feel better about subsidizing insurance or helping out our fellow citizens that really need it rather than paying for some bridge or any other of the millions of dollars of pork barrel we throw out. Bad things can happen to anyone, anywhere, anytime... whether it's an earthquake, hurricane, tidal wave, terrorist attack, massive power outage in the middle of a blizzard. What is the point of having a federal government at all if it's not to protect their citizens from harm (as much as it is possible)?

Why not put the money toward a national emergency disaster fund instead of helping out insurance companies? Seems to make more sense to me.

this is a complex issue. we already are paying for it at the national level - it's called FEMA. when a natural disaster of this magnitude happens the federal government steps in anyway, and considering that mississippi and louisiana are two of the poorest states in the country - they are always going to need federal help in these situations.

but getting an insurance pay out after your home, and perhaps your entire neighborhood, has been washed away in a katrina-like storm doesn't really seem like much of an incentive to pack up and re-build your dream house in the middle of a floodplain. insurance pay out or not, living through something like that would be a horrific nightmare.

Syako, this comment makes NO sense: "but because of the inept Army Corp of Engineer's levees breaking"

The army corp of Engineers did the best they can do with the money alloted to them. They were given the funds to protect against a hurricane category 3 or possibly even 4. That is like asking a car to drive from new york to chicago and only filling up the gas tank with 3 gallons.

To this day you ALWAYS pay for flood or hurricane insurance through FEMA. There is no insurance company out there who "sells" it in the way where you can compare rates. You buy the policies through the insurance companies but the rates are ALL set by FEMA depending on the risk. Sewer and Drain back up coverage is what is set by insurance companies.

If I wanted to pay for hurricane insurance, I'd go live somewhere that gets hurricanes.
Ultimately, this would just be taxpayers paying for others' lifestyle choices... which is insane.

I live in Pennsylvania, I don't want to be paying for hurricane insurance for people in Florida. That's just crazy. Like someone mentioned above, we already have FEMA, which tax payers are paying for. Maybe we should try to improve FEMA, which obviously needs some help.

"If I wanted to pay for hurricane insurance, I'd go live somewhere that gets hurricanes.
Ultimately, this would just be taxpayers paying for others' lifestyle choices... which is insane."

I completely agree with this!

Of course democrats want to do this. No big surprise.

This is a regional issue. People who live in the midwest shouldn't have to pay for insurance for something that is not going to happen there.

I support Obama and I'm disappointed that he's in support of this, so please let's not make categorizations that all dems support this. Independent thinking is still possible!

lauren it makes sense because for some reason lawmakers felt it not necessary to make levees that would withhold the 100 year storm. I'm not putting all the blame on the army corp, because obviously they can only do with what money they have, but they didn't get more money, they didn't make the right levees, they aren't getting enough money now and they still aren't making the right levees.

There is really no area in the nation that is free from the threat of national disasters. Most people don't know that St. Louis has the same disasterous earthquake risk as Los Angeles!

Tornadoes, floods, blizzards, earthquakes, mudslides, fires...they strike everywhere. If there is something that can be done to decrease the expense that it costs society as a whole, I am open to hearing about it.

Syako- I was merely commenting on the fact that it seemed as if you put the blame on the Corps of Engineers.

Did anyone read the article?

It says that it covers all 50 states...it isn't just a Florida insurance program.

If we're going to do something about helping people with insurance after disasters, you have to include tornado and earthquake damage - we've been shown recently that both can strike anywhere (even the midwest) without warning.

Also from the article...

The legislation passed the House with bipartisan support last year, 258-155.

Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (and potential McCain running mate) are pushing hard for the Federal program.

This proposal also covers any state to get hit with a disaster, "whether hurricane, earthquake, tornadoes, or other crisis".

I don't want anything nationalized so the fact it covers all 50 states makes no difference. I still do not support it.

"Republican Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (and potential McCain running mate) are pushing hard for the Federal program."

Was McCain pushing for it? Because he is the won running for president and the one that matters in my opinion rather then a POTENTIAL VP nominee.

(I wish I knew how to do bold so it did not look like I was yelling)

yeah Jill, how do you bold? I don't know anyone else who does it here.

Oh and I meant one not won. Stupid spelling mistakes. I believe I get the medal for the most

To bold use the less than sign, then the letter b, then the great than sign "" those are referred to as carots

To unbold: /b with the carots

That is so complicated. I would think there would be an easier way. I guess I will stick to using capitalization.

You would think so. It gets easier, more you use it.

It would be nice if the Sugars redid the text boxes to accept Microsoft cntrl- commands. Then you could hit cntrl-b to bold, and then hit it again to stop using bold.

(I'm a geek) :geek:

:nerd:

I guess I just don't care enough to go through the trouble to get used to it. I am lazy.

"Did anyone read the article?

It says that it covers all 50 states...it isn't just a Florida insurance program."

-- Sadly, I did not. But thank you for doing so. I wonder why the headline was so misleading if this is for all states and all disasters?

The bold thing is too complicated for me. I'm just excited that I know how to insert pictures now! For your enjoyment here's a lovely picture for your general enjoyment.

Yeah, the headline could've been:
Democrats Want to Nationalize Catastrophic Insurance

But then people would think the national government was going to provide everyone with Aflac insurance....

Pop, because Florida is the state that would benefit the most, and many other state citizens would just have to pay the extra taxes without gaining the benefits. Which is why McCain is against it.

It actually says something about McCain because he needs to win Florida, and he is not backing something that he feels would only truly benefit one state.

HF, that's terrifying when you first scroll down!

How do you insert pictures?

Well I don't REALLY know how. I just pretend that I'm writing myself a private message and insert a picture. It automatically puts it in the right format and then I copy and paste it...and put it on here. I'm sure there's a real way to do it. Now I'm embarrassed at my lack of computer knowledge.

But does it get flagged or does it come up right away?

Mine came up right away!

To bold - (without the spaces)
To italicize - (without the spaces)

Good old fashioned html.

Florida isn't the only state that is frequently hit with hurricanes. Texas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia... My boyfriend is always bragging about surviving Hurricane Gloria or whatever that hit Massachusetts.

Am I missing something?

Gloria was in the 80's I believe or maybe early 90's. I remember going out and riding my bike during the eye of the storm.

Natural disasters are everywhere, but that does not mean that Florida would not benefit the most out of a program like this one.