HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 26, 2006 To be honest, I do not believe the current Congress has a realistic plan to provide better flood protection insurance, not only for people who reside in New Orleans, but for the rest of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, not to mention Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine or Massachusetts or anywhere else in the United States subject to flood damage. You have to realize that home owners, particularly from the point of view of renters, are the rich people, the well-to-do, the folks with assets, who can afford to pay taxes, especially since decent homes can start at two hundred thousand dollars and escalate to mansion dimensions, depending on a person’s circumstances and other intangible variables. But once you lose your home and also quite possibly your business, you, too, have become not only poor, but you would essentially be homeless just to clearly categorize your woes. Current public thinking is that tax payers will provide the protection Congress calls for just as they do with social security and medicare and medicaid. One explanation for this is that no one in the insurance industry, or banking, which is affected, too, since bankers face losses through bankruptcies and business disruption, is lobbying for a practical plan that would collect revenue to see that potential claims, however large, multiplied however many times, spread across whatever sovereign states, get paid. It may be true that floods do not occur everywhere in this country and some people probably can recover from such large losses. On the other hand, hurricanes, tornados, and sudden heavy rain downpours are destructive, in theory, supporting the general theory that insurance is supposed to be helpful to getting back on your feet. Not to mention earthquakes, mud slides, sink holes, and whatever come hell what may that can shake the land under your feet out from under where you are standing. Then again, fires and crime losses are pretty harmful, too. But with political attacks on private property rights being a best seller in some Washington circles, it comes as no surprise that so little helpful thinking is being done. After all, why should Washington abandon the something for nothing approach that has been so profitable for it all these long years. On the other hand there are people who if asked could come up with a reasonable answer for how property losses can be recouped without too much pain for the public at large. Insurance companies employ many, many people who understand the variables involved and could calculate a reasonable solution. People like Warren Buffett or Hank Greenberg could probably come up with some reasonable approach to solving the problem. In addition, I would like to point out that I pay in the neighborhood of one hundred twenty dollars per year for about one hundred thousand dollars of fire insurance coverage (that is about tend dollars a month) although I do not expect to be burned out of my co-op and there were quotes of four hundred dollars per year for flood insurance for a decent house (translating into something more than thirty dollars a month in premiums). Of course, auto insurance in New York is well north of one thousand dollars per year, but there are some terrible drivers out there. Keep in mind that this is the Congress that does not have much faith in flood prevention, in the first place. This is my fifty-fifth essay for Useless-Knowledge, with more to come as time, inspiration and opportunity permit. ------------ About the author Neil Levine: If you want to check out my satires on thespoof.com, click here: http://www.thespoof.com/profile.cfm?uID=2595 Email: neillevine3@aol.com Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
