One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Insurance and California Fires
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Nov 13, 2018 13:15:52   #
Liberty Tree (a regular here)
 
Here is a question for all to answer. Should the government reimburse those who suffered loss due to the fires if they did not have insurance?

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 13:27:51   #
Carol Kelly (a regular here)
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Here is a question for all to answer. Should the government reimburse those who suffered loss due to the fires if they did not have insurance?


With California’s attitude of late, I should say no way. We had caboodles of insurance and they denied all but a small proportion. Some of our neighbors with no insurance faired far better with government assistance. Because we had so much insurance, government denied us. We didn’t want their help anyway. We are DIYs. Retired Military.

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 15:55:04   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Here is a question for all to answer. Should the government reimburse those who suffered loss due to the fires if they did not have insurance?


I have a similar question; Why should they? I lost my house in hurricane Wilma in 2005. We were doing just fine until the western side of the eye-wall hit, then the roof was gone in a heartbeat, right from over our heads (October 22nd, Boynton Beach, Florida. Look it up). We had four hurricanes in 2004 without even so much as a damaged screen. The insurance had lapsed just a month previously because my insurer wanted a 25% increase that I was definitely not going to pony up. You see, they thought they had me over a barrel due to mortgage requirements, but I had no mortgage. Big oops on their part. Three weeks later there's a cat. 5 tearing up the Yucatan and headed straight for us. Nobody went out of their way to build me a new one. Three hundred grand straight down the Suwanee. So no, no insurance, no bailout. That's what insurance is for.

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 16:09:48   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
With California’s attitude of late, I should say no way. We had caboodles of insurance and they denied all but a small proportion. Some of our neighbors with no insurance faired far better with government assistance. Because we had so much insurance, government denied us. We didn’t want their help anyway. We are DIYs. Retired Military.


If you have insurance why should the government give you anything? That's what insurance is for.

I'm of the opinion that people without insurance have nothing coming from the government, that said insurance companies are dropping people in ever growing fire danger areas, and the insurance industry needs to be forced to give coverage for the risky stuff if they want the gravy.

We live in the mountains between Sacramento and Tahoe, our long term insurance company dropped us (Liberty Mutual), we found a replacement.

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 16:12:02   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
I have a similar question; Why should they? I lost my house in hurricane Wilma in 2005. We were doing just fine until the western side of the eye-wall hit, then the roof was gone in a heartbeat, right from over our heads (October 22nd, Boynton Beach, Florida. Look it up). We had four hurricanes in 2004 without even so much as a damaged screen. The insurance had lapsed just a month previously because my insurer wanted a 25% increase that I was definitely not going to pony up. You see, they thought they had me over a barrel due to mortgage requirements, but I had no mortgage. Big oops on their part. Three weeks later there's a cat. 5 tearing up the Yucatan and headed straight for us. Nobody went out of their way to build me a new one. Three hundred grand straight down the Suwanee. So no, no insurance, no bailout. That's what insurance is for.
I have a similar question; Why should they? I lo... (show quote)


Yet people in barrier island zones with vacation homes that can't get insurance get government money to rebuild year after year. That needs to stop

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 16:19:42   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
Yet people in barrier island zones with vacation homes that can't get insurance get government money to rebuild year after year. That needs to stop


Yikes! Where did that come from? I know people who lost second homes across the intracoastal and didn't see anything remotely resembling government money. Is this an actual verifiable fact or some rumor?

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 20:54:34   #
Carol Kelly (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
If you have insurance why should the government give you anything? That's what insurance is for.

I'm of the opinion that people without insurance have nothing coming from the government, that said insurance companies are dropping people in ever growing fire danger areas, and the insurance industry needs to be forced to give coverage for the risky stuff if they want the gravy.

We live in the mountains between Sacramento and Tahoe, our long term insurance company dropped us (Liberty Mutual), we found a replacement.
If you have insurance why should the government gi... (show quote)


What this country needed in the first place was to force insurance companies to fulfill their commitments and that goes for health insurance as well. Insurance policies should cover the insured for existing conditions as well as conditions that may occur. If one wall of your house goes down and a forty foot surge washes the entire house and contents away, they shouldn’t just pay for one wall. If you want to buy an insurance policy but you’ve already had quadruple by pass surgery, they shouldn’t deny you insurance. They’ll sure take your money to pay for the policy if you never have a heart attack. They’re making interest on that money you’re paying. They can afford to pay. I hope you didn’t buy Nationwide as your replacement insurance. There were signs everywhere here “Nationwide, Where are you”.

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 21:22:16   #
Larry the Legend (a regular here)
 
Carol Kelly wrote:
What this country needed in the first place was to force insurance companies to fulfill their commitments and that goes for health insurance as well. Insurance policies should cover the insured for existing conditions as well as conditions that may occur.


You know, if there was no government interference, you wouldn't feel the need to advocate for yet more government interference. You want to know why healthcare is so expensive? You want to know why people are dropped from their policies? You want to know why people with 'preexisting conditions' are denied coverage? You want to know why the entire healthcare service is in such a total disarray? Look to government. They started it, and you want them to 'fix' it? I have another idea, a better idea; how about the government goes back to governing and leaves commerce to take care of itself? How's that for a radical notion? Not just in the insurance industry, but in any industry. There ought to be a law barring any government entity, elected or not, from even thinking about interfering in our personal commercial endeavors. Period.

If I were to enact such a law, any violation would be punishable by eternal damnation. And don't even start me on taxes, because taxes also impede commercial progress by removing the means of production from those best suited to decide how it should be spent and put it into the hands of a pack of idiots.

| Reply
Nov 13, 2018 22:25:27   #
Carol Kelly (a regular here)
 
Larry the Legend wrote:
You know, if there was no government interference, you wouldn't feel the need to advocate for yet more government interference. You want to know why healthcare is so expensive? You want to know why people are dropped from their policies? You want to know why people with 'preexisting conditions' are denied coverage? You want to know why the entire healthcare service is in such a total disarray? Look to government. They started it, and you want them to 'fix' it? I have another idea, a better idea; how about the government goes back to governing and leaves commerce to take care of itself? How's that for a radical notion? Not just in the insurance industry, but in any industry. There ought to be a law barring any government entity, elected or not, from even thinking about interfering in our personal commercial endeavors. Period.

If I were to enact such a law, any violation would be punishable by eternal damnation. And don't even start me on taxes, because taxes also impede commercial progress by removing the means of production from those best suited to decide how it should be spent and put it into the hands of a pack of idiots.
You know, if there was no government interference,... (show quote)


I said “What this country needed in the first place” and I meant before they started trying to legislate insurance. Now that they’ve meddled so much disastrously leading some people to think the government needs to provide insurance, there seems to be no return.

| Reply
Nov 14, 2018 13:35:12   #
bggamers (a regular here)
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
Here is a question for all to answer. Should the government reimburse those who suffered loss due to the fires if they did not have insurance?


no

| Reply
Nov 14, 2018 13:47:33   #
bggamers (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
If you have insurance why should the government give you anything? That's what insurance is for.

I'm of the opinion that people without insurance have nothing coming from the government, that said insurance companies are dropping people in ever growing fire danger areas, and the insurance industry needs to be forced to give coverage for the risky stuff if they want the gravy.

We live in the mountains between Sacramento and Tahoe, our long term insurance company dropped us (Liberty Mutual), we found a replacement.
If you have insurance why should the government gi... (show quote)


A couple of years ago there was an earthquake in California not bad but some damage this woman was standing looking at a house that had fallen down the side of the hill the tv man asked who lived in that house she said me.He said well you look ok so you got out thank God your insurance will help you rebuild. She looked at him and said I didnt have insurance. He said but that is a big expensive looking house.Yes over 1 million. Why no insurance ? Well because the place I wanted my house is prone to earthquakes no one would insure me. Why did you not build somewhere else. Oh because look at that view it's to die for. True story can't make this up

| Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2019 IDF International Technologies, Inc.