No, insurance companies insure against some hurricane damage, but not other. For example, they will insure against wind, but not water, and not wind-driven water. Thus, if your roof is torn off, you get paid, but you don't get paid for the water damage to the contents. On the other hand, if you live in a flood-prone area and your home is washed away by storm surge, you aren't covered, unless you have federal flood insurance, which is mandatory for all federally-insured mortgages.Schneibster wrote:The reason is because the government covers disasters, because insurance companies can't afford to keep enough on hand to handle a hurricane.
I had to have flood insurance on one of the houses on my ranch because I had a bank loan even though the house was on top of a cliff 40 feet above the maximum 500 year flood plain, which could easily be seen simply by standing on the bridge over the creek and looking up at the house. But FEMA refused to recognize this obvious fact because it had placed the street address within the flood plain because ANY PART of the property was in the flood plain. I finally convinced the bank to drop the requirement because it wasn't a federally-insured loan, but FEMA required a detailed flood elevation survey to certify what was visibly obvious, and I didn't feel like spending $800 on such a survey, and anyway none of the local surveyors would agree to provide such a survey for liability reasons.
Sounds like a good reason not to live in a hurricane zone to me. Why should the rest of us pay for you to do so? And then pay again, and again, and again? Go live somewhere else or pay for your own perils.So if we destroy FEMA, then if a hurricane comes and blows away our houses, we're fucked. See ya. Hope you know how to rebuild it sport 'cause there ain't no federal assistance comin' and the insurance company ain't responsible.
You forget (or probably never knew) that it's the states that have primary responsibility for disaster response and planning. Anything and everything FEMA does can be done better, more cheaply, and more efficiently at the state level. So instead of taking money from the states, sending it to Washington where they skim of a bunch to pay for the bureaucrats and their hooker parties, only to have the diminished amount sent back to the state when a disaster happens, let's just leave the money with the states and let them handle the disasters themselves, which they did for a couple of hundred years before FEMA came along."Get rid of FEMA" is like saying, "Let's fire all the firemen." Idiotic. We did private firefighters in San Diego in the wildfires; the lawsuits are still pending.
Did you know that the majority of states pay an exorbitant amount of the FEMA disaster relief funding for the 11 states most prone to hurricane damage? Why should that be the case? Why shouldn't those 11 states pay MUCH higher taxes to fund their repeated need for hurricane disaster funds? Why shouldn't they be simply told "do not let anyone build a residence in a hurricane high-damage or storm-surge zone because FEMA will NOT provide disaster recover funds for any such structures"? We should do the same for flood-prone areas, like along the Mississippi. I'm fine with "we'll rebuild you ONCE, after that, you're on your own."
Nah, FEMA is just another socialist/liberal/Democrat fuckwad scam.Another Libertardian scam.
No, merely that if impoverished families in incredibly poor third world countries can manage to scrape together enough money to send their kids to private schools in order to avoid sending them to the incredibly poor public schools, then middle-class and poor parents in America can certainly scrape enough money together to send THEIR kids to private schools that are better than the Frankfurt School Marxist public schools that everyone else has to pay exorbitant amounts to unqualified union teachers to run.