Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Not News: Bootstrappy libertarian John Stossel blasts the government for providing flood insurance. News: He is collecting a flood insurance check. Facepalm: For the third time   ( thinkprogress.org) divider line
    More: Dumbass, John Stossel, flood insurance, news, money back guarantee, National Flood Insurance Program, floods, Steve Doocy, federal government  
•       •       •

2367 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-01 02:08:13 PM  
John you ignorant slut!
 
2012-11-01 02:18:30 PM  
Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

The insurance industry is happy to sell insurance when they can make a lot of money and earn a healthy underwriting surplus on it--health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, etc. But when it comes to disaster insurance that they might have to pay big bucks out on some day--for example, wind coverage in Florida, earthquake coverage in California, and flood coverage nationwide--they throw up their hands and say it's "uninsurable." Which means that either people can't insure their homes at all, or there has to be some sort of non-profit government-backed insurance pool to provide that coverage.

The only other option is nobody has flood insurance at all. Meaning that people's life savings are wiped out, people walk away from their mortgages and the banks are left holding the bag with a worthless pile of rubble in their place, the local economy crashes, and undoubtedly, the feds have to organize and pay (with tax dollars, rather than with insurance premiums) for all disaster recovery. Is that what these wankers would prefer?
 
2012-11-01 02:41:02 PM  
If "fark you, I got mine" is literally just the libertarian position on everything, then it's not really hypocrisy is it? I think you owe someone an apology, Subby
 
2012-11-01 02:49:04 PM  
Stossel has been on record about this for decades... I remember in the 1990's watching him on 20/20 standing in front of his beach house and thanking America for paying to rebuild it....

Calling him a hypocrite is missing the much larger point. But I guess that's about what I've come to expect.
 
2012-11-01 02:53:37 PM  
Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.
 
2012-11-01 03:01:03 PM  
Isn't the reason we have government flood insurance because

Cyberluddite: Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.


Ah, cool.

Once again, a libertarian completely and utterly forgets about the whole "demand" side of supply and demand, and how risks and costs make flood insurance unfeasible for private insurers to do because when it happens, it almost always costs more than the paid money would cover on a larger, broader area. Homes get robbed. Neighborhoods and towns get flooded. It's not households getting payouts from an insurance company from a poop collected from a large group, it's about a big chunk of the large group getting a payout because everyone got farked by it.
 
2012-11-01 03:12:33 PM  
If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Somehow it's supposed to be better I guess if people build and then have society at large subsidize these costs.
 
2012-11-01 03:12:48 PM  
a.abcnews.go.com
 
2012-11-01 03:13:53 PM  
David Shultz should have slapped him harder.
 
2012-11-01 03:16:35 PM  
The program should only be available to primary residences and secondary residences under a certain value and not within flood-prone areas.

Simple enough. Fark Stossel's beach house. It's an important program, but why should we ensure personal indulgences with public funds?

That said, incredible asshole that he is notwithstanding, he bought into the program that was available to him, why the fark shouldn't he benefit under the rules he agreed to? Rules are rules and they don't stop being rules just because a hypocritical dickcheese who doesn't understand how private insurance works (or, in the case of flood insurance, doesn't) is whining about them.
 
2012-11-01 03:16:51 PM  
John Stossel is a butt weasel
 
2012-11-01 03:17:55 PM  
I don't blame him for collecting a check anymore than I blame Warren Buffet for not volunatrily paying more taxes. If you're trying to change an entire system, the actions a single person aren't going to make a difference.
 
2012-11-01 03:19:48 PM  
And this is why I facepalm whenever I hear a Libertarian comment on anything to do with economics:

They have no real understanding of it.

"GOVERNMENT BAD, BUSINESS GOOD"

Except that from what I've seen, whenever a government entity privatizes some service, IT GOES TO farkING shiat. Costs skyrocket while services get cut and those that remain decline in quality, and people still blame the government for running it into the ground!

I got into an arguement about the USPS, which would be wonderful if it didn't have to prepay 75 years of pensions. All the other side of the arguement had were anecdotes and general anti-union rhetoric. *sigh*
 
2012-11-01 03:21:30 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The program should only be available to primary residences and secondary residences under a certain value and not within flood-prone areas.

Simple enough. Fark Stossel's beach house. It's an important program, but why should we ensure personal indulgences with public funds?

That said, incredible asshole that he is notwithstanding, he bought into the program that was available to him, why the fark shouldn't he benefit under the rules he agreed to? Rules are rules and they don't stop being rules just because a hypocritical dickcheese who doesn't understand how private insurance works (or, in the case of flood insurance, doesn't) is whining about them.


the issue is that he voluntarily joined a program he opposes. It's not like collecting social security or driving on public roads if one opposes those things. He willingly participated in a program that he considers unfair. You don't have a choice whether you contribute to SS or drive on roads (practically speaking)
 
2012-11-01 03:23:50 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Somehow it's supposed to be better I guess if people build and then have society at large subsidize these costs.


Better for mortgage lenders. Bad for society, bad for homeowners.
 
2012-11-01 03:24:14 PM  
"Paging Dr. D, Dr. D, we have a smarmy douchebag who needs re-application of whoop-ass medicine, code blue."
 
2012-11-01 03:24:39 PM  

Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.


Spoken like someone who doesn't have flood insurance, or, in the inestimable words of someone whose shoes I am surely not worthy to spitshine, an ignorant twatwaffle. The government doesn't write flood insurance policies. It simply mandates that people purchase such policies. My flood carrier, I assure you, would not be mistaken for the government.

Anyway, my word's no good around here, so here's everybody's favorite agency du jour, FEMA, on the subject:

Who do I contact if I want to purchase a flood insurance policy?

The National Flood Insurance Program has an arrangement with private insurance companies to sell and service flood insurance policies. A list of private insurance companies that sell and service NFIP flood insurance policies is available to you.

You may also contact your insurance agent or company to find out more about federal flood insurance or find an agent serving your area by filling out the Flood Risk Profile.

Back to Frequently Asked Questions: Considering Purchasing a Policy
 

By the way, if you follow their links, you'll find that there are quite a number of private companies in the flood insurance business. The government has created a market through regulation; the private sector has, as would be expected, filled the demand.
 
2012-11-01 03:26:37 PM  
He's on medicare too? What a moocher.
 
2012-11-01 03:26:48 PM  
What an ignorant sack of shiat.
 
2012-11-01 03:26:57 PM  
www.mediaite.com
 
2012-11-01 03:27:25 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: That said, incredible asshole that he is notwithstanding, he bought into the program that was available to him, why the fark shouldn't he benefit under the rules he agreed to?


So, instead of being principled and not owning a beach house because he couldn't afford to rebuild it. he should just IGNORE his principles, because there is a way out.

Libertarian logic, indeed. fark my principles! I can take advantage of a system I abhor!
 
2012-11-01 03:27:37 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Well, a bank isn't going to give a mortgage for a home that doesn't have insurance. So I guess we'll stop building or buying houses that lie within 20 miles of the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico - too many hurricanes. While we're at it, we'll also rope off a mile or two along the banks of the Mississippi (flooding), southern California (wildfires) - hell the entire west coast (earthquakes). While we're at it, lets rope off Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and the rest of Tornado Alley - we just can't afford to spend money on federal disaster aid like we did in Joplin.

I just hope you're ready to take on a few new roommates since your plan demands that a sizeable percentage of the US population relocate.
 
2012-11-01 03:28:30 PM  
Fun Fact: John Stossel's mustache is insured with Lloyd's of London for $1,000,000
 
2012-11-01 03:30:17 PM  

mediablitz: Libertarian logic, indeed. fark my principles! I can take advantage of a system I abhor!


How much you wanna bet you can find footage of Stossel doing the classic "WELL IF WARREN BUFFIT WANTS TO PAY MOR TAXIZ NOBUDDEEZ STOPPIN HIM, SNERT!!!" song-and-dance? What a walking, talking cesspool.
 
2012-11-01 03:30:35 PM  

skullkrusher: the issue is that he voluntarily joined a program he opposes.


Meh. Why not take advantage of benefits available to you as long as they're available? It's a lot like Warren Buffet. He opposes the federal tax system that lets him get away with unjustifiably low rates and wants to see it changed, but until that happens, why not take advantage? It really only makes sense to hurt yourself intentionally in situations like this if you want to be a martyr for your cause.

I guess I only really see this as being an issue for people who weren't already keenly aware of the fact that John Stossel is an incredibly hypocritical and vacuous bag of douchenecks.
 
2012-11-01 03:30:54 PM  

Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

The insurance industry is happy to sell insurance when they can make a lot of money and earn a healthy underwriting surplus on it--health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, etc. But when it comes to disaster insurance that they might have to pay big bucks out on some day--for example, wind coverage in Florida, earthquake coverage in California, and flood coverage nationwide--they throw up their hands and say it's "uninsurable." Which means that either people can't insure their homes at all, or there has to be some sort of non-profit government-backed insurance pool to provide that coverage.

The only other option is nobody has flood insurance at all. Meaning that people's life savings are wiped out, people walk away from their mortgages and the banks are left holding the bag with a worthless pile of rubble in their place, the local economy crashes, and undoubtedly, the feds have to organize and pay (with tax dollars, rather than with insurance premiums) for all disaster recovery. Is that what these wankers would prefer?


Stossel is absolutely 100% correct here. The reason you can't buy flood insurance at affordable rates is because it's too risky.

If its too risky, you shouldn't build and rebuild houses in flood plains.

flood insurance is a horrible program for the nation as a whole, but I don't blame people for participating. If the government offered everyone life insurance at 25-year old non-smoker rates, I wouldn't blame 75 year old smokers for signing up for it even if they realize it's a disasterous policy nationally. They'd be stupid not to, as would owners of risky flood prone property who didn't sign up for below market subsidized flood insurance.
 
2012-11-01 03:31:28 PM  
If the government sets up a situation where someone can profit, it will be exploited.
 
2012-11-01 03:31:30 PM  
Stossel is everything that drives me crazy about Libertarians. First of all, if you get 500 of them in a room and ask them what Libertarians stand for, you'll get 500 different definitions. Second of all, and as shown here, they love to talk about Libertarian law of the jungle princples in an antiseptic textbook environment, but when it comes for them to actually take on the risk in the real world without a government safety net none of them have the balls.
 
2012-11-01 03:32:11 PM  

mediablitz: So, instead of being principled


Pfft. John Stossel's only principle is that John Stossel will do whatever is best for John Stossel. This guy was being Fair and Balanced before Rupert Murdoch made it vogue.
 
2012-11-01 03:32:18 PM  
John, I f*cked your mom but actively oppose momf*cking as an act. Sorry!
 
2012-11-01 03:33:21 PM  

Karac: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Well, a bank isn't going to give a mortgage for a home that doesn't have insurance. So I guess we'll stop building or buying houses that lie within 20 miles of the Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico - too many hurricanes. While we're at it, we'll also rope off a mile or two along the banks of the Mississippi (flooding), southern California (wildfires) - hell the entire west coast (earthquakes). While we're at it, lets rope off Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and the rest of Tornado Alley - we just can't afford to spend money on federal disaster aid like we did in Joplin.

I just hope you're ready to take on a few new roommates since your plan demands that a sizeable percentage of the US population relocate.


All those areas aren't uninsurable. People in oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, and southern California can buy market rate insurance policies. So can I, and I live withing 20 miles of the Atlantic.
 
2012-11-01 03:33:26 PM  

Karac: Well, a bank isn't going to give a mortgage for a home that doesn't have insurance.


My God ... that sounds a lot like a ... mandate.
 
2012-11-01 03:36:30 PM  

EyeballKid: "Paging Dr. D, Dr. D, we have a smarmy douchebag who needs re-application of whoop-ass medicine, code blue."


You rang?

Is this where I say that in order for a home to be eligible for an NFIP policy, it has to be moved out of a 100-year floodplain? That many mortgages require an NFIP policy - this is a rule the BANKS want?
 
2012-11-01 03:37:42 PM  
Libertarians are like unicorns, except people take them less seriously.

Modern libertarians are just like the idiot tea-partiers who continue their nonsense claims that they're a real, separate party. Oh, sure, we vote for republicans, we run in Republican primaries, we caucus with Republicans, but we're totally independent. We're not Republicans at all.

Just more Republicans ashamed to be called Republicans.

/please, someone say Gary Johnson
 
2012-11-01 03:38:52 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Stossel is absolutely 100% correct here. The reason you can't buy flood insurance at affordable rates is because it's too risky.

If its too risky, you shouldn't build and rebuild houses in flood plains.

flood insurance is a horrible program for the nation as a whole, but I don't blame people for participating. If the government offered everyone life insurance at 25-year old non-smoker rates, I wouldn't blame 75 year old smokers for signing up for it even if they realize it's a disasterous policy nationally. They'd be stupid not to, as would owners of risky flood prone property who didn't sign up for below market subsidized flood insurance.


That is stupid on a historical level. There's a reason most great cities have been built at the mouths of rivers. Some vulnerability to flooding has been seen as a valid risk compared to the commerce you can conduct and resources you can access from that location. It's not easy to just pull up big chunks of cities because they're not longer "insurable." That's why flood insurance is offered by the government.

This is more than flood plains and occasional seasonal flooding with snow melt and some storms. This is about huge areas getting wrecked by weather and suffering massive flood damage. Massive in the sense of quantity. Like I said before:

Bloody William: omes get robbed. Neighborhoods and towns get flooded. It's not households getting payouts from an insurance company from a pool collected from a large group, it's about a big chunk of the large group getting a payout because everyone got farked by it.


When things like this happens, it ceases being individuals getting affected and an industry able to respond economically. When the insurance is needed, it's usually needed en masse, and in a way that won't be reasonably absorbed by private insurance.
 
2012-11-01 03:39:35 PM  

Bloody William: Isn't the reason we have government flood insurance because

Cyberluddite: Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

Ah, cool.

Once again, a libertarian completely and utterly forgets about the whole "demand" side of supply and demand, and how risks and costs make flood insurance unfeasible for private insurers to do because when it happens, it almost always costs more than the paid money would cover on a larger, broader area. Homes get robbed. Neighborhoods and towns get flooded. It's not households getting payouts from an insurance company from a poop collected from a large group, it's about a big chunk of the large group getting a payout because everyone got farked by it.


You said poop collected from a large group.

And then you said chunk.

And then everyone got farked
 
2012-11-01 03:39:36 PM  

TheOnion: Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.


I know you're a troll account, but I also know there's a lot of people who feel this way.

Under that logic, why aren't right wingers also going out and getting abortions every weekend just for fun? I mean it's LEGAL so you may as well do it.

And if there was a legal loophole that you could rape nuns for two days a year, why, it's just common sense to go out and rape nuns there. It's the governments fault, not yours.
 
2012-11-01 03:40:21 PM  

bmongar: John you ignorant slut!


Oh, and this thread was over right out of the gate.

/boobies
 
2012-11-01 03:41:02 PM  

TheMysticS: You said poop collected from a large group.

And then you said chunk.

And then everyone got farked


POOL! I MEANT POOL!
 
2012-11-01 03:41:06 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: skullkrusher: the issue is that he voluntarily joined a program he opposes.

Meh. Why not take advantage of benefits available to you as long as they're available? It's a lot like Warren Buffet. He opposes the federal tax system that lets him get away with unjustifiably low rates and wants to see it changed, but until that happens, why not take advantage? It really only makes sense to hurt yourself intentionally in situations like this if you want to be a martyr for your cause.

I guess I only really see this as being an issue for people who weren't already keenly aware of the fact that John Stossel is an incredibly hypocritical and vacuous bag of douchenecks.


it is like Warren Buffett in that regard. Stossel thinks it is unfair that others be burdened with his federally subsidized insurance yet he continues to take advantage of it. WB thinks it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary yet continues to do so. Stossel refusing to take such coverage or Buffett willingly paying more would speak to their principles but neither would make a dent in the notion they claim to support (or oppose)
 
2012-11-01 03:43:16 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.
 
2012-11-01 03:46:30 PM  

InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.


seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule
 
2012-11-01 03:46:54 PM  

Fark Dupp: David Shultz should have slapped him harder.


Came to say this. Kinda. Was thinking he didn't hit him hard enough because he's still speaking.
 
2012-11-01 03:49:52 PM  

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule


Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.
 
2012-11-01 03:52:15 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.


we're talking about houses
 
2012-11-01 03:52:23 PM  
If they stop the program like he wants them to, he will stop collecting the checks.

See? Now, wasn't that easy?
 
2012-11-01 03:53:04 PM  

Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.


Actually, no. The private insurance market is happy to accept the risk. The problem is, that when there's a huge disaster, the private insurance company can't pay for it and goes tits up. When that happens, the government usually ends up paying out.

When I was a kid, this happened a lot. Some major disaster would happen, the people would try to get the money from the insurance company, and the insurance company would go bankrupt. The U.S. government got into the insurance business because they were left on the hook so many times. Sure, they could have just let the people who bought insurance suffer, but that doesn't seem like a good idea, does it?

Corporations are designed so that if something big and bad goes down, they can dissolve, without the investors, officers, or directors being liable. I would say more than anything else that's the purpose of a corporation. However, there are numerous cases where the company vanishing hurts an enormous number of people. At that point, we have to decide whether we'd rather have those people suffer or have the government step in. In every case I can think of, the consensus was to have the government help those people.
 
2012-11-01 03:54:18 PM  
You know how I know subby's never financed a home and dealt with a mortgage company?
 
2012-11-01 03:56:12 PM  

fawlty: You know how I know subby's never financed a home and dealt with a mortgage company?


how?
 
2012-11-01 03:57:22 PM  
"This twat looks way too much like me. Trade in your mustache, douchebag."

www.myfacewhen.net
 
2012-11-01 03:58:13 PM  

skullkrusher: it is like Warren Buffett in that regard. Stossel thinks it is unfair that others be burdened with his federally subsidized insurance yet he continues to take advantage of it. WB thinks it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary yet continues to do so. Stossel refusing to take such coverage or Buffett willingly paying more would speak to their principles but neither would make a dent in the notion they claim to support (or oppose)


False equivalency. Stossel does not have the legal right to do what he thinks is fair (not carry the insurance). Nothing stops Buffett from paying whatever he thinks is fair, so long as it's equal to or greater than the amount he's legally required to pay.

Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want. Making a claim on that is no more inappropriate than taking advantage of Medicare when you qualify - you've "paid for" it, you might as well get some benefit from that. And actually, the flood insurance example is even more compelling - if he's like me, Stossel paid market rates for his insurance, so his claims aren't directly subsidized by general revenue the way, e.g., Medicare claims are (that is, people don't actually "pay for" Medicare through payroll taxes, but people DO pay for their flood insurance).
 
2012-11-01 03:58:22 PM  
The Dooce went off script!
 
2012-11-01 03:58:56 PM  

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses


We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.
 
2012-11-01 03:59:27 PM  

fiver5: Stossel has been on record about this for decades... I remember in the 1990's watching him on 20/20 standing in front of his beach house and thanking America for paying to rebuild it....

Calling him a hypocrite is missing the much larger point. But I guess that's about what I've come to expect.


Exactly. I cannot stand our tax code, but yet I claim my interest deduction every year. It doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.

Actually, this is the opposite - he is quite open about this and has been all along.
 
2012-11-01 04:01:09 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.


We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean
 
2012-11-01 04:02:31 PM  

Garet Garrett: skullkrusher: it is like Warren Buffett in that regard. Stossel thinks it is unfair that others be burdened with his federally subsidized insurance yet he continues to take advantage of it. WB thinks it is unfair he pays less in taxes than his secretary yet continues to do so. Stossel refusing to take such coverage or Buffett willingly paying more would speak to their principles but neither would make a dent in the notion they claim to support (or oppose)

False equivalency. Stossel does not have the legal right to do what he thinks is fair (not carry the insurance). Nothing stops Buffett from paying whatever he thinks is fair, so long as it's equal to or greater than the amount he's legally required to pay.

Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want. Making a claim on that is no more inappropriate than taking advantage of Medicare when you qualify - you've "paid for" it, you might as well get some benefit from that. And actually, the flood insurance example is even more compelling - if he's like me, Stossel paid market rates for his insurance, so his claims aren't directly subsidized by general revenue the way, e.g., Medicare claims are (that is, people don't actually "pay for" Medicare through payroll taxes, but people DO pay for their flood insurance).


Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.
 
2012-11-01 04:03:07 PM  

skullkrusher: We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.


I don't give a flying fark where you think you "need" me to live.  I don't live to fill your needs.

Signed,

Everyone
 
2012-11-01 04:03:25 PM  

skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean


You live in Manhattan don't you?
 
2012-11-01 04:03:37 PM  

Garet Garrett: Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have flood insurance, or, in the inestimable words of someone whose shoes I am surely not worthy to spitshine, an ignorant twatwaffle. The government doesn't write flood insurance policies. It simply mandates that people purchase such policies. My flood carrier, I assure you, would not be mistaken for the government.


You are wrong. The NFIP is underwritten by the government. They do not sell or market it--it is sold by private insurance companies as the agent of the NFIP, but the insurance company does not bear any of the risk. They take the premium you pay, and forward on to FEMA, which is the entity that underwrites the policy and pays the claims. Your insurance company simply services the policy, but is not the risk bearer. To say that your insurance company is the one who is the carrier is like saying that your insurance agent is the guy who writes your homeowner's policy.

The government also does not mandate that anybody purchases policies, except to the extent that you're confusing Fannie Mae with the government, which will not back a mortgage on a flood-prone property if there's no flood insurance in place.

Trust me on this.
 
2012-11-01 04:04:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.


That's one of the most tendentious arguments I've seen from you, and you're not afraid to be tendentious.
 
2012-11-01 04:05:41 PM  

Garet Garrett: Stossel does not have the legal right to do what he thinks is fair (not carry the insurance).


Is Stossel's house in a high risk flood zone?
 
2012-11-01 04:06:29 PM  

Garet Garrett: Signed,

Everyone


I don't give a flying fark about your "message". I don't live to be used as an example by you.

Signed,

Me
 
2012-11-01 04:06:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?


so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country
 
2012-11-01 04:07:22 PM  

Bloody William: TheMysticS: You said poop collected from a large group.

And then you said chunk.

And then everyone got farked

POOL! I MEANT POOL!


I'm so sorry. I couldn't help it.
Great typo.
 
2012-11-01 04:07:32 PM  

Garet Garrett: skullkrusher: We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

I don't give a flying fark where you think you "need" me to live.  I don't live to fill your needs.

Signed,

Everyone


yeah, that was kind of my point. We don't "need" people to leave near the ocean. I was responding to a poster who said we do.
Lern to reed

Signed,

Your mom
 
2012-11-01 04:08:12 PM  

Garet Garrett: Philip Francis Queeg: Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.

That's one of the most tendentious arguments I've seen from you, and you're not afraid to be tendentious.


Good lord.

John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.
 
2012-11-01 04:08:42 PM  

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


For the most part, you can't buy private flood insurance anywhere in the U.S.--whether it's New Orleans, Phoenix, or the top of a mountain in Colorado. The private insurance market simply isn't interested in the risk. Your private insurer will take your premium for it, but what it's really providing you with is a flood policy issued by the NFIP--you insurance company forwards all of the premium collected to the feds, and the feds are the one who are on the risk. The insurance company bears no risk of loss under NFIP policies.


Anway, catastrophe insurance works differently than regular insurance, such as fire insurance. For an insurance company that issues fire insurance, they're going to have some losses every year, but the goal is, on an average annualized basis, to take in more in premium than they pay out in losses. Their losses may vary a little from year to year, but on average they're pretty predictable (or at least they hope so--if they predict wrong, they lose money and/or eventually go out of business). With catastrophe insurance, though, it's possible that the insurer may go years and years without paying out any claims to speak of. Then--boom--one day, they have losses that are enormous--more than they have in assets, and more than the total amount they took in as premium income over the years. Were they supposed to bank every single dollar of premium they ever collected to keep it in reserve for that one year--the year that may come next year, 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now? Not a real efficient use of capital, is it?

Let's say, for example, that an insurance company wrote two policies on the same book of 1000 similar properties--a flood policy and a fire policy on each one. Let's also assume that the actuarial and loss-modeling figures say that, for each property, there's a 1-in-100 year (1.%) chance that there will be a fire that'll burn the place down in any given year, and there's also a 1-in-100 year (1%) chance that there will be a serious flood. Let's also assume the value of each property is $100K. That would mean that the raw, risk-based premium for each property (without any profit load added in), should be $1000 per year on both the fire and flood policies ($100,000 times 1%). Let's add, let's say, 10% (to use round numbers) for a profit load, and we arrive at an annual premium of $1100 for each policy. Times 1000 properties, that means the insurance company collects $1,100,000 in premium for the fire coverage, and the same amount for the flood coverage.

How does that work on the fire coverage? Well, because fires occur all the time and aren't necessarily keyed to infrequent events (like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, etc.), in an average year, 1% of the homes in that 1-in-100-year risk band will burn down. So that means that, on average, the insurer would pay 10 losses of $100K each in any given year on the fire coverage, for a total of $1,000,000. The insurer collected $1,100,000 in premium, so it's earned a profit of $100,000. If it's a private company, it can pay out that profit as dividends to its shareholders.

How does it work on the flood coverage? Well, in the average year, there will be no losses. Why? Because it's catastrophe coverage, and catastrophes don't happen often. In this case, we can expect that the insured event will happen, on average, only once every 100 years. So, statistically speaking, in 99 of the next 100 years, we can expect that the insurer's losses will be zero, but in one of those 100 years, we can expect the insurer's losses to be $100,000,000 (1000 homes at $100K each). That works out to an average annual loss over 100 years of $1,000,000 ($100 million divided by 100 years), the same as the fire coverage, but the problem is that it comes all at once, not gradually over that 100 years.

So, for example, in Year 1, there are no floods, and the insurer collected $1,100,000 and paid out nothing, for an annual underwriting profit of $1,100,000. Let's say this goes on for 10 years, and at the end of 10 years, the insurer has collected $11 million. At the end of 50 years, it's collected $55 million. It can't distribute it to its shareholders as premium, though, if it's acting responsibly. It needs to just sit on that pot of money, saving it for the one year that it has huge losses. Not a particularly efficient use of capital, is it?

And what if that big flood comes after, say, only 5 years after the insurer got into the flood insurance business? Suddenly it has to pay out $100 million in losses, for which it's collected an aggregate of only $5.5 million in premiums. Where is it supposed to get the other $94.5 million to pay those losses? This is how many insurance companies have gone tits up in the past--leaving their policyholders with no way to collect the benefits they paid premiums for.

And anyway, if the solution is just "don't build where there might be a flood," take a look at the 100-year floodplain maps sometime. A lot of the country falls into that. If nobody built a house in the 100-year floodplain, we would have to cram 300 million people into Idaho and Montana and Nevada and similar places, and leave many of our existing populated areas to rot.
 
2012-11-01 04:09:44 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country


I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2012-11-01 04:09:57 PM  
There are times when saying "fark you asshole" in a debate is good sense.

fark you, John Stossel.
 
2012-11-01 04:10:51 PM  
Stossel is such a tool that even Fox News wont air him on a daily basis. My favorite Stossel hit was saying that private business can discriminate based on color or gender and the free market would fix it.
Go to the 3:31 mark
The guy is truly world class scum. And does not help shake the Libertarians are heartless stereotype just cements it.
 
2012-11-01 04:12:38 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country

I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.


umm... yeah, very few of us "need" to live on the island to ensure the wealth and prosperity that access to the oceans provides. What part are you missing (unintentionally)?
 
2012-11-01 04:12:58 PM  
www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com
 
2012-11-01 04:13:24 PM  

kingoomieiii: Garet Garrett: Philip Francis Queeg: Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.

That's one of the most tendentious arguments I've seen from you, and you're not afraid to be tendentious.

Good lord.

John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.


meh - is he actually in a location that does have mandatory participation in the program?
 
2012-11-01 04:16:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country

I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.

umm... yeah, very few of us "need" to live on the island to ensure the wealth and prosperity that access to the oceans provides. What part are you missing (unintentionally)?


I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.
 
2012-11-01 04:17:08 PM  

skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean


So only water front property is damaged by Hurricanes?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-01 04:17:16 PM  

Cyberluddite: The NFIP is underwritten by the government.


You're correct; I'd forgotten about that. FEMA underwrites the policies. But it doesn't write them, or price them (the more important point), if memory serves. Flood insurance rates are market based.

Cyberluddite: The government also does not mandate that anybody purchases policies


I'll disagree with you on this one. It's a Congressionally-approved requirement that any federally insured or regulated lenders require flood insurance based on FEMA maps. I guess your point could be "well, I could borrow from Uncle Phil" but that's not a particularly realistic argument. The government has insinuated itself in the process and it's not fair to allow minor exceptions to swallow the rule. I guess if you're willing to assume that all people have unlimited resources, then sure. But they don't.
 
2012-11-01 04:17:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.


you're an idiot, brah
 
2012-11-01 04:18:40 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean

So only water front property is damaged by Hurricanes?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 470x350]


oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point
 
2012-11-01 04:19:30 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah


Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.
 
2012-11-01 04:20:32 PM  
He has a very punchable face. So he's got that going for him
 
2012-11-01 04:21:15 PM  

kingoomieiii: John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.


You're think of liability coverage. I can most certainly buy a car and not carry collision, and if I run it into a telephone poll it's my loss, no one else's. I'm not aware of any states that require you to carry collision coverage on your car, yet that's what's involved in flood insurance. Flood policies aren't designed to cover you in case your house is picked up by a wave and rammed into your neighbor's garage.
 
2012-11-01 04:21:52 PM  

Garet Garrett: think


thinking, dammit.
 
2012-11-01 04:22:10 PM  

skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point


You inferred that it's not necessary to have high density populations living near the ocean to operate commercial ports, because people could simply live far enough away to avoid all Hurricane/flood damage and commute to commercial ports. This was an utterly ridiculous and laughable point. Thus, I'm now laughing and ridiculing you.
 
2012-11-01 04:22:42 PM  

Bloody William: poop collected from a large group


www.reactionface.info
 
2012-11-01 04:23:18 PM  

skullkrusher: yeah, that was kind of my point.


My apypolyloggies.
 
2012-11-01 04:23:51 PM  

skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point


This isn't just about owning a house on a flood plain, which NFIP already adjusts premiums for so you do pay less when you're further away and at lower risk. This is about the fact that we tend to congregate near floodable areas because they happen to offer the best commerce, transportation, and other resources for growth, which is why our great cities almost all were built at the mouths of rivers. This isn't just the issue of having beachside property. It's about covering a risk that densely populated areas tend to face due to historical development.
 
2012-11-01 04:26:50 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: TheOnion: Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.

I know you're a troll account, but I also know there's a lot of people who feel this way.

Under that logic, why aren't right wingers also going out and getting abortions every weekend just for fun? I mean it's LEGAL so you may as well do it.

And if there was a legal loophole that you could rape nuns for two days a year, why, it's just common sense to go out and rape nuns there. It's the governments fault, not yours.


First, I don't know why you think I'm a troll account. I've been here a long time, and I don't think it's appropriate to immediately devolve into unproductive name calling.

The thing you're missing here is that this is a financial issue, not a moral issue (like rape, the example you provided). People don't commit crimes because they are morally opposed to them. This would be more like not taking a tax credit because you don't agree with the taxation system. Just because you don't completely agree with the way the government is spending money, doesn't mean you can't benefit from the current system while still opposing it. Again, tax credits are a proper example, moral crimes (like rape) are not.
 
2012-11-01 04:28:53 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point

This isn't just about owning a house on a flood plain, which NFIP already adjusts premiums for so you do pay less when you're further away and at lower risk. This is about the fact that we tend to congregate near floodable areas because they happen to offer the best commerce, transportation, and other resources for growth, which is why our great cities almost all were built at the mouths of rivers. This isn't just the issue of having beachside property. It's about covering a risk that densely populated areas tend to face due to historical development.


What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work. You lived where you worked, more or less. Commerce created jobs and attracted people to those jobs. Back in the day, living near your job was pretty much a necessity, generally speaking. If I owned a general store in Tombstone, AZ in 1850, I'd probably live above it. If I owned a general store there today, that is no longer a requirement
 
2012-11-01 04:32:31 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point

You inferred that it's not necessary to have high density populations living near the ocean to operate commercial ports, because people could simply live far enough away to avoid all Hurricane/flood damage and commute to commercial ports. This was an utterly ridiculous and laughable point. Thus, I'm now laughing and ridiculing you.


ah so now you're using the weaselly "near" and expanding the damage to include "hurricane" damage and not the flooding from bodies of water as is the topic? I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either. Is there something precluding either of us from working in some seafaring industry? No, of course not. Your insistence that people MUST live in a flood plain is what is laughable and ridiculous.
 
2012-11-01 04:33:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.


nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.
 
2012-11-01 04:34:24 PM  

Garet Garrett: kingoomieiii: John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.

You're think of liability coverage. I can most certainly buy a car and not carry collision, and if I run it into a telephone poll it's my loss, no one else's. I'm not aware of any states that require you to carry collision coverage on your car, yet that's what's involved in flood insurance. Flood policies aren't designed to cover you in case your house is picked up by a wave and rammed into your neighbor's garage.


What are you saying there?

What flood insurance does cover (meaning standard homeowners' does not): flooding from anything other than plumbing. This includes rain, floodwaters, storm surge, wind-driven rain and wind-driven storm surge. I think even if rain leaks through your roof, standard insurance won't cover it - you'll need your NFIP policy.
 
2012-11-01 04:37:03 PM  

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule


It's a good thing that natural disasters only effect people within 2 miles of the coastline.

Also, it's not like these natural disasters seem to be happening right now at a far more frequent rate compared to a few decades ago.
 
2012-11-01 04:37:44 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.

nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.


As opposed to your well thought out and serious argument that there is no economic reason for anyone to live on the island of Manhattan.
 
2012-11-01 04:38:07 PM  

schrodinger: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

It's a good thing that natural disasters only effect people within 2 miles of the coastline.

Also, it's not like these natural disasters seem to be happening right now at a far more frequent rate compared to a few decades ago.


it's a good thing you didn't read the thread as feigning ignorance of the topic allowed you to make this insightful comment
 
2012-11-01 04:38:36 PM  

Garet Garrett: You're correct; I'd forgotten about that. FEMA underwrites the policies. But it doesn't write them, or price them (the more important point), if memory serves. Flood insurance rates are market based.


Yes it does. Your flood premium will be the same regardless of whether your homeowners insurance is USAA, State Farm, Allstate, Tijuana Mutual, or whatever. Insurance companies do not price the policy--not could they, because it's not their policy. (The only possible variable may be whatever structural limit of insurance your company calculates for your home and the limit of insurance they calculate for your homeowner's policy--Company A may value it higher than Company B--but the rate [$X.XX per $1000 of value] is going to be the same regardless of what insurance company you buy the flood policy through. And this could be a possible factor only on low-value properties, valued at below the maximum limits of $250K that can be written on any NFIP policy.)

And no, the flood insurance rates are not really "market based." They're risk-based--the rate is calculated based on a combination of relative flood risk for the location times the limit of coverage. Having said that, though, in many locations the NFIP rates are not actuarially sound. High-risk areas are priced too low, and are below the rate that would be actuarially indicated for the risk of loss. The thought is that the true actuarially-indicated rate would be so high tthat nobody could afford it (which means they couldn't get a mortgage on the house). To some extent, these are subsidized by charging rates that are a little too high in low-risk areas, but to a greater extent, these rates are subsidized by the government--i.e., the taxpayers. In recent years, there have been significant strides made to make the NFIP rates more reflective of the true risks, and they've come a long way, but they're still got quite a ways to go.

It's a Congressionally-approved requirement that any federally insured or regulated lenders require flood insurance based on FEMA maps. I guess your point could be "well, I could borrow from Uncle Phil" but that's not a particularly realistic argument. The government has insinuated itself in the process and it's not fair to allow minor exceptions to swallow the rule. I guess if you're willing to assume that all people have unlimited resources, then sure. But they don't

I don't know, you may be right about this. But it's kind of a moot point--no lender with a brain--federally backed or not--is going to give you a mortgage on a house in the flood plain without you insuring it and naming them as a loss payee under the policy. Because they know that, if there's a flood and you have no insurance, you'll leave them holding the bag by walking away from the house and letting them foreclose on a pile of sticks, which means they'll never recover the money you borrowed from them. Which is a risk no lender would be dumb enough to take.
 
2012-11-01 04:40:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.

nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.

As opposed to your well thought out and serious argument that there is no economic reason for anyone to live on the island of Manhattan.


ok, step one: you admit you intentionally "misunderstood" the topic? That's uncharacteristically honest of you.
ok, step two: no, there is no economic reason related to manning "shipping ports [which]have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth" why someone must live in Manhattan. In fact, I'd wager the overwhelming majority of people who do work the ports in NY do not live in Manhattan.
ok, step three: PFQ pretends he still doesn't get it
 
2012-11-01 04:42:13 PM  

skullkrusher: What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work. You lived where you worked, more or less. Commerce created jobs and attracted people to those jobs. Back in the day, living near your job was pretty much a necessity, generally speaking. If I owned a general store in Tombstone, AZ in 1850, I'd probably live above it. If I owned a general store there today, that is no longer a requirement


You're asking for communities to fundamentally restructure and relocate on a regional scale because of a single threat that is seasonal and, while present, not one that constantly affects it. That is unfeasible. While not an absolute necessity, geographical proximity is still a vital part of... well, all real estate. The danger of floods, present or not, does not change the fact that we have created very large communities in areas close to the water?

To put it more clearly, do you really think that because of Sandy people in Staten Island or the west village are thinking, "Well, shiat, I wish I was living in Hackettstown because of all this?"
 
2012-11-01 04:42:33 PM  
You mean this dick
On December 28, 1984, during an interview for 20/20 on professional wrestling, wrestler David Schultz struck Stossel after Stossel stated that he thought professional wrestling was "fake". Stossel stated that he suffered from pain and buzzing in his ears eight weeks after the assault.[79] Stossel sued and obtained a settlement of $425,000 from the World Wrestling Federation (WWF). In his book, Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity, he writes that he has come to regret doing so, having adopted the belief that lawsuits harm hundreds of innocent people

But did he then return the money?
 
2012-11-01 04:47:21 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work. You lived where you worked, more or less. Commerce created jobs and attracted people to those jobs. Back in the day, living near your job was pretty much a necessity, generally speaking. If I owned a general store in Tombstone, AZ in 1850, I'd probably live above it. If I owned a general store there today, that is no longer a requirement

You're asking for communities to fundamentally restructure and relocate on a regional scale because of a single threat that is seasonal and, while present, not one that constantly affects it. That is unfeasible. While not an absolute necessity, geographical proximity is still a vital part of... well, all real estate. The danger of floods, present or not, does not change the fact that we have created very large communities in areas close to the water?

To put it more clearly, do you really think that because of Sandy people in Staten Island or the west village are thinking, "Well, shiat, I wish I was living in Hackettstown because of all this?"


no, I'm not. The ONLY thing I am arguing - which began as a joke about Honda Mules - is that it is not necessary for people to live in flood plains to maintain and run shipyards. That was true long ago. That is not true now.
 
2012-11-01 04:47:52 PM  
Oh, also - the average cost of an NFIP policy is $600.

Per year.

// $50/month - less than most people pay for cars, mortgages/rent, gas, beer...
// to insure your house and many of the things in it - average cost of a house (especially the 30-year mortgage cost) is FAR greater than $50/mo, and well worth paying that to insure it against the most common type of damage
// source - floodsmart.gov
 
2012-11-01 04:48:00 PM  
Most of the argument about flood plains is irrelevant. The main reason flood insurance cannot be handled profitably by private insurance companies is not because flooding at any particular location is inevitable. The problem is that when floods do occur, the damage can be incredibly widespread (when the Susquehanna flooded last year during tropical storm Irene, over 80% of the businesses and 50% of the homes in my hometown were damaged, in addition to almost all the schools, public parks, and government offices--at that was only one town among hundreds to be effected); even forest fires and earthquakes are comparatively local events. With so many claims coming due at once, the insurance losses are unsustainable. The ratio of premium to coverage necessary to protect the insurance company from bankruptcy would not be a rational price for the individual consumer to accept. That is where the government must come in. .
 
2012-11-01 04:50:03 PM  

skullkrusher: I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either.


Doofus, Sandy was a small Category 1 Hurricane. To say only people living on a "flood plane" or within "two miles" (in your example) wouldn't be effected by a Category 3-4-5 Hurricane is not only laughable, but utterly untrue.

The FEMA declarations of Katrina (Cat 5) for example...


upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org 

How far do you think a commercial portsman should live away from a Gulf of Mexico port for his commute? Illinois?
 
2012-11-01 04:50:56 PM  

Garet Garrett: kingoomieiii: John Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy car insurance he should not buy a car.

You're think of liability coverage. I can most certainly buy a car and not carry collision, and if I run it into a telephone poll it's my loss, no one else's. I'm not aware of any states that require you to carry collision coverage on your car, yet that's what's involved in flood insurance. Flood policies aren't designed to cover you in case your house is picked up by a wave and rammed into your neighbor's garage.


You can not get a car loan without agreeing to collision coverage, get in a wreck and what is the bank going to do if you decide not to keep paying, reposses a heap of scrap metal.
 
2012-11-01 04:51:32 PM  

skullkrusher: no, I'm not. The ONLY thing I am arguing - which began as a joke about Honda Mules - is that it is not necessary for people to live in flood plains to maintain and run shipyards. That was true long ago. That is not true now.


That is factually true. It also implies many things that are completely false, if you want to extrapolate from that statement what we should do in regards to flood risk and development.

Cornelius Dribble: Most of the argument about flood plains is irrelevant. The main reason flood insurance cannot be handled profitably by private insurance companies is not because flooding at any particular location is inevitable. The problem is that when floods do occur, the damage can be incredibly widespread (when the Susquehanna flooded last year during tropical storm Irene, over 80% of the businesses and 50% of the homes in my hometown were damaged, in addition to almost all the schools, public parks, and government offices--at that was only one town among hundreds to be effected); even forest fires and earthquakes are comparatively local events. With so many claims coming due at once, the insurance losses are unsustainable. The ratio of premium to coverage necessary to protect the insurance company from bankruptcy would not be a rational price for the individual consumer to accept. That is where the government must come in. .


That's what I've been saying! Individual homes don't get flooded on their own. When homes get flooded, a LOT of them get flooded at once, meaning insurance companies need to pay out a farkton of money at once.
 
2012-11-01 04:53:54 PM  

Bloody William: That is factually true.


best sort of true
 
2012-11-01 04:55:34 PM  

Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.


John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?
 
2012-11-01 04:56:54 PM  

schrodinger: Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.

John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?


Does he have a mortgage? Because private enterprise might be forcing him to get an insurance policy he doesn't want, if the house is at risk of flooding. The bank might require NFIP protection.
 
2012-11-01 04:59:57 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either.

Doofus, Sandy was a small Category 1 Hurricane. To say only people living on a "flood plane" or within "two miles" (in your example) wouldn't be effected by a Category 3-4-5 Hurricane is not only laughable, but utterly untrue.

The FEMA declarations of Katrina (Cat 5) for example...


[upload.wikimedia.org image 372x599]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 470x350] 

How far do you think a commercial portsman should live away from a Gulf of Mexico port for his commute? Illinois?


you're so CUTE when you're being dishonest, "Doofus". Tell me, why do you think ALL hurricane related damage is relevant to our discussion rather than just damage due to flooding because of close proximity to the water? Recall, you're arguing that people need to live on the water to run shipyards, not that hurricanes can do damage miles inland
 
2012-11-01 05:01:13 PM  

schrodinger: Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.

John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?


This is the whole point. If it's uninsurable through private means, then many fewer people would recklessly build fragile houses on the beach. The feds should just say, "This insurance program does not apply to beachfront property."

But since poor people are being forced to subsidize flood insurance for the rich, John Stossel is able to rebuild time and time again. Thanks, poor people.
 
2012-11-01 05:02:06 PM  

Bloody William: schrodinger: Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.

John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?

Does he have a mortgage? Because private enterprise might be forcing him to get an insurance policy he doesn't want, if the house is at risk of flooding. The bank might require NFIP protection.


He doesn't have to buy a house on the beach. He's not being forced to do this.
 
2012-11-01 05:05:03 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.

nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.

As opposed to your well thought out and serious argument that there is no economic reason for anyone to live on the island of Manhattan.

ok, step one: you admit you intentionally "misunderstood" the topic? That's uncharacteristically honest of you.
ok, step two: no, there is no economic reason related to manning "shipping ports [which]have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth" why someone must live in Manhattan. In fact, I'd wager the overwhelming majority of people who do work the ports in NY do not live in Manhattan.
ok, step three: PFQ pretends he still doesn't get it


Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

Keep flailing my friend.
 
2012-11-01 05:07:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Tell me, why do you think ALL hurricane related damage is relevant to our discussion rather than just damage due to flooding because of close proximity to the water?


Ughhh... because insurers categorize all Hurricane induced damage (wind, mold, etc) as "flood" damage, whether the damage was caused by flooding or not.
 
2012-11-01 05:07:41 PM  

skullkrusher: you're so CUTE when you're being dishonest, "Doofus". Tell me, why do you think ALL hurricane related damage is relevant to our discussion rather than just damage due to flooding because of close proximity to the water? Recall, you're arguing that people need to live on the water to run shipyards, not that hurricanes can do damage miles inland


No, you're arguing that people don't need to live within walking distance of the water if they work there, and because that's factually true about shipyards and being directly on the water, you're implying through extrapolation that the policy works in all cases of living and working near water. You're then ignoring the social, historical, and logistical issues of many, many communities with many, many people already living close to the water as they have for centuries and the economic issue that, regardless of whether you're close to the water or not, floods affect large numbers at once, making payouts by private insurers less feasible compared to the individual payouts of homeowner, renter, health, and car insurance.
 
2012-11-01 05:08:43 PM  

InmanRoshi: Ughhh... because insurers categorize all Hurricane induced damage (wind, mold, etc) as "flood" damage, whether the damage was caused by flooding or not.


Also that!
 
2012-11-01 05:13:27 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: you're so CUTE when you're being dishonest, "Doofus". Tell me, why do you think ALL hurricane related damage is relevant to our discussion rather than just damage due to flooding because of close proximity to the water? Recall, you're arguing that people need to live on the water to run shipyards, not that hurricanes can do damage miles inland

No, you're arguing that people don't need to live within walking distance of the water if they work there, and because that's factually true about shipyards and being directly on the water, you're implying through extrapolation that the policy works in all cases of living and working near water. You're then ignoring the social, historical, and logistical issues of many, many communities with many, many people already living close to the water as they have for centuries and the economic issue that, regardless of whether you're close to the water or not, floods affect large numbers at once, making payouts by private insurers less feasible compared to the individual payouts of homeowner, renter, health, and car insurance.


nope. No implication at all. Fact is people live on the water. They don't need to to keep our shipyards going but they do regardless. That's not gonna change. However, if it did change, we'd still have operational shipyards.
 
2012-11-01 05:14:40 PM  

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: Tell me, why do you think ALL hurricane related damage is relevant to our discussion rather than just damage due to flooding because of close proximity to the water?

Ughhh... because insurers categorize all Hurricane induced damage (wind, mold, etc) as "flood" damage, whether the damage was caused by flooding or not.


and we're talking about the necessity for people to live on the water to operate shipyards. Not what insurers categorize hurricane damage as.
 
2012-11-01 05:15:47 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.


a conversation that I started with my Honda Mules? See, what's happening is what "multiple posters" are doing is trying to argue against and argument that hasn't been made because that's how liars roll.
 
2012-11-01 05:15:53 PM  
If something is "uninsureable" it's not because a bunch of people get hit simultaneously, it's because people overvalue their property. A $400,000 dollar house on the beach that gets knocked down every five years is not worth $400,000. So what happens is Joe Homeowner who wants to insure his property goes to an insurance broker, and they tell him he can buy $400,000 dollars of insurance for $80,000 dollars a year. He says that's ridiculous, he's not going to pay it. So he doesn't. Five years later his house gets knocked down. Then he has no insurance, and the federal government swoops in to save the day! He gets a new house! Financed by the 99% of the country who doesn't lose its house in hurricane season, because we're either too poor or too smart to not build a super expensive building in an area that's destroyed every five years. So now he pays $800 dollars a year, and our taxes make up the other $79,200. Again, this problem comes from the fact that the house is not worth $400,000 to begin with. Would you pay $20,000 for a car that blows up after five years? Would you pay $60 for a video game that uninstalls itself after 24 hours? So why the hell should we pay so that Joe Homeowner can get a house priced at 10 times its value?
 
2012-11-01 05:16:24 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

a conversation that I started with my Honda Mules? See, what's happening is what "multiple posters" are doing is trying to argue against and argument that hasn't been made by me because that's how liars roll.

 
2012-11-01 05:19:27 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.

nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.

As opposed to your well thought out and serious argument that there is no economic reason for anyone to live on the island of Manhattan.

ok, step one: you admit you intentionally "misunderstood" the topic? That's uncharacteristically honest of you.
ok, step two: no, there is no economic reason related to manning "shipping ports [which]have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth" why someone must live in Manhattan. In fact, I'd wager the overwhelming majority of people who do work the ports in NY do not live in Manhattan.
ok, step three: PFQ pretends he still doesn't get it

Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

Keep flailing my friend.


PFQ is either stupid or intentionally misreading what has been written. Skullkrusher didn't say that no one has a reason to BE near the coast, but that there is no compelling reason to LIVE IN AN AREA THAT GETS FLOODED CONSTANTLY. There is a huge, meaningful difference.
 
2012-11-01 05:20:00 PM  
Kind of like Nancy Pelosi and insider trading, Al gores homes huge electric consumption, and on
ad nauseum Do as I say not as I do.
Democrats are soooo altruistic.
 
2012-11-01 05:22:10 PM  

vernonFL: Fun Fact: John Stossel's mustache is insured with Lloyd's of London for $1,000,000


must be an amazing ride
 
2012-11-01 05:23:18 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

a conversation that I started with my Honda Mules? See, what's happening is what "multiple posters" are doing is trying to argue against and argument that hasn't been made because that's how liars roll.


I have to agree your initial "Honda mules" post was inherently dishonest as has been your attempts to reddefine thediscussion.

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule


You chose to dishonestly characterize the post you were responding to, and by continuing to insist that your chosen mis-characterization of the initial post is the only legitimate basis of discussion. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as just being foolish and stubborn, but now I must admit that your entire involvement in this thread as been based on dishonesty. Thank you for leading me to that realization.
 
2012-11-01 05:23:46 PM  

The Only Jeff: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: I'm agreeing with you that our major coastal cities are economically unnecessary and should be abandoned for habitation. Where are you planning on moving to? I hear Montana is nice.

you're an idiot, brah

Says the guy arguing that there is no economic need for anyone to live in coastal areas.

nah, I didn't argue that. You know that. I know that. Yet again you think playing stupid wins the point.

As opposed to your well thought out and serious argument that there is no economic reason for anyone to live on the island of Manhattan.

ok, step one: you admit you intentionally "misunderstood" the topic? That's uncharacteristically honest of you.
ok, step two: no, there is no economic reason related to manning "shipping ports [which]have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth" why someone must live in Manhattan. In fact, I'd wager the overwhelming majority of people who do work the ports in NY do not live in Manhattan.
ok, step three: PFQ pretends he still doesn't get it

Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

Keep flailing my friend.

PFQ is either stupid or intentionally misreading what has been written. Skullkrusher didn't say that no one has a reason to BE near the coast, but that there is no compelling reason to LIVE IN AN AREA THAT GETS FLOODED CONSTANTLY. There is a huge, meaningful difference.


it certainly isn't the first time he's gone to war with the argument he wants to hear rather than the argument he has heard. The reason he does this is almost certainly the latter. My SOLE argument is that there is no compelling economic reason related to shipping or oceangoing occupations which requires someone to live on stilts in the middle of a South Shore swamp.
 
2012-11-01 05:24:48 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

a conversation that I started with my Honda Mules? See, what's happening is what "multiple posters" are doing is trying to argue against and argument that hasn't been made because that's how liars roll.

I have to agree your initial "Honda mules" post was inherently dishonest as has been your attempts to reddefine thediscussion.

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

You chose to dishonestly characterize the post you were responding to, and by continuing to insist that your chosen mis-characterization of the initial post is the only legitimate basis of discussion. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as just being foolish and stubborn, but now I must admit that your entire involvement in this thread as been based on dishonesty. Thank you for leading me to that realization.


why didn't you bold the first part? Oh, that's right. Because you're a liar. Or is "populations" a new word for "ports" that I am unfamiliar with?
 
2012-11-01 05:26:33 PM  

The Only Jeff: PFQ is either stupid or intentionally misreading what has been written. Skullkrusher didn't say that no one has a reason to BE near the coast, but that there is no compelling reason to LIVE IN AN AREA THAT GETS FLOODED CONSTANTLY. There is a huge, meaningful difference.


I guess you missed this part of the exchange.

skullkrusher: You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country

I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.

umm... yeah, very few of us "need" to live on the island to ensure the wealth and prosperity that access to the oceans provides. What part are you missing (unintentionally)?


He's never made flood risk a part of his argument.
 
2012-11-01 05:26:55 PM  

skullkrusher: nope. No implication at all. Fact is people live on the water. They don't need to to keep our shipyards going but they do regardless. That's not gonna change. However, if it did change, we'd still have operational shipyards.


Bloody William: That is factually true. It also implies many things that are completely false, if you want to extrapolate from that statement what we should do in regards to flood risk and development.


Is this really hard to understand? You're talking about a small thing in a discussion about flood insurance as a necessity as run by government. It does not apply to all, or most, cases. You are plying- goddammit, screw it. I'm gonna hit the gym and play some Assassin's Creed. Not at the same time.

The Only Jeff: PFQ is either stupid or intentionally misreading what has been written. Skullkrusher didn't say that no one has a reason to BE near the coast, but that there is no compelling reason to LIVE IN AN AREA THAT GETS FLOODED CONSTANTLY. There is a huge, meaningful difference.


Then it has fark-all to do with flood insurance (which, incidentally, does adjust and cartegorize premiums based on historical tendency towards flooding) and the discussion at hand. This is a week after the worst hurricane to hit the northeast and one that entire states and cities are still recovering from. This isn't about a handful of houses that were built right on a river. It is intellectually dishonest to connect the two in the context of this discussion.
 
2012-11-01 05:28:10 PM  

Bloody William: You're talking about a small thing in a discussion about flood insurance as a necessity as run by government.


yep - a small thing that people are apparently finding very difficult to understand. Seems like your issue is with those idiots, not me
 
2012-11-01 05:29:14 PM  

skullkrusher: Or is "populations" a new word for "ports" that I am unfamiliar with?


Actually, it's a very, very old synonym for it, if you want to look into the history of almost any major city, or minor city, or large town in the country. Built on the coast, on rivers, or at the mouth of a river on the coast. There is a reason for that. There's also a reason that dating back to ancient Egypt populations have clustered near sources of water. That is something you cannot reasonably demand to change, if only because of the sheer logistical insanity of saying, "Well, commuting's easier. No reason for tons and tons of people to leave in this places where tons and tons of people have been living for centuries and where there's already far more extensive infrastructure."
 
2012-11-01 05:29:41 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The Only Jeff: PFQ is either stupid or intentionally misreading what has been written. Skullkrusher didn't say that no one has a reason to BE near the coast, but that there is no compelling reason to LIVE IN AN AREA THAT GETS FLOODED CONSTANTLY. There is a huge, meaningful difference.

I guess you missed this part of the exchange.

skullkrusher: You live in Manhattan don't you?

so? We're talking about "need". I don't "need" to live in Manhattan to ensure some greater economic good of the country

I'm sure when you and the other 1,601,947 residents of the island are relocated further from the ocean there will be no negative economic impacts.

umm... yeah, very few of us "need" to live on the island to ensure the wealth and prosperity that access to the oceans provides. What part are you missing (unintentionally)?

He's never made flood risk a part of his argument.


hehe, spiraling further and further into self parody.
You truly have no shame.
 
2012-11-01 05:31:20 PM  

skullkrusher: Bloody William: You're talking about a small thing in a discussion about flood insurance as a necessity as run by government.

yep - a small thing that people are apparently finding very difficult to understand. Seems like your issue is with those idiots, not me


My issue is with intellectual honesty, which means not using red herring fallacies.
 
2012-11-01 05:31:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: He's never made flood risk a part of his argument.


"What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work."

" I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either."

"no, I'm not. The ONLY thing I am arguing - which began as a joke about Honda Mules - is that it is not necessary for people to live in flood plains to maintain and run shipyards."

Seems like he was talking about flooding to me.
 
2012-11-01 05:31:48 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: Or is "populations" a new word for "ports" that I am unfamiliar with?

Actually, it's a very, very old synonym for it, if you want to look into the history of almost any major city, or minor city, or large town in the country. Built on the coast, on rivers, or at the mouth of a river on the coast. There is a reason for that. There's also a reason that dating back to ancient Egypt populations have clustered near sources of water. That is something you cannot reasonably demand to change, if only because of the sheer logistical insanity of saying, "Well, commuting's easier. No reason for tons and tons of people to leave in this places where tons and tons of people have been living for centuries and where there's already far more extensive infrastructure."


yeah, there is a reason for that. Honda Mules. No one is demanding anything change. Just pointing out that it is not necessary to ensure commerce and wealth that access to the ocean provides. As I have been the whole time. Maybe find someone else who is making the argument you'd like to counter because you've agreed with mine on a few occasions
 
2012-11-01 05:32:05 PM  
Okay, leaving computer now. Mean it this time.
 
2012-11-01 05:32:33 PM  

Bloody William: skullkrusher: Bloody William: You're talking about a small thing in a discussion about flood insurance as a necessity as run by government.

yep - a small thing that people are apparently finding very difficult to understand. Seems like your issue is with those idiots, not me

My issue is with intellectual honesty, which means not using red herring fallacies.


what are your feelings on Strawmen, Solomon?
 
2012-11-01 05:32:59 PM  

The Only Jeff: If something is "uninsureable" it's not because a bunch of people get hit simultaneously, it's because people overvalue their property. A $400,000 dollar house on the beach that gets knocked down every five years is not worth $400,000. So what happens is Joe Homeowner who wants to insure his property goes to an insurance broker, and they tell him he can buy $400,000 dollars of insurance for $80,000 dollars a year. He says that's ridiculous, he's not going to pay it. So he doesn't. Five years later his house gets knocked down. Then he has no insurance, and the federal government swoops in to save the day! He gets a new house! Financed by the 99% of the country who doesn't lose its house in hurricane season, because we're either too poor or too smart to not build a super expensive building in an area that's destroyed every five years. So now he pays $800 dollars a year, and our taxes make up the other $79,200. Again, this problem comes from the fact that the house is not worth $400,000 to begin with. Would you pay $20,000 for a car that blows up after five years? Would you pay $60 for a video game that uninstalls itself after 24 hours? So why the hell should we pay so that Joe Homeowner can get a house priced at 10 times its value?


I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but you seem to be missing a very basic premise of the concept of insurance. And that's this: The basic concept of buying insurance protection to protect your assets is to put you in the same position you were in before the loss, which means that, for purposes of property insurance, "Value" or "worth" = cost of reconstruction. That's how almost every residential property insurance policy is written, and flood insurance is the same. In a down real estate market (and in run-down areas), this may mean that the reconstruction cost is more than what you could sell the property for on the open market, but you're paying premium based on the reconstruction cost, not the market resale value, and you have a right to have your house rebuilt, because that's what you paid for. (However, if you decide not to rebuild, most insurance policies have a clausing saying they will only pay based on the lower of (a) reconstruction cost or (b) actual cash value as of the time of loss.)

Also, nobody is buying $400,000 in flood insurance on a house, as in your example. The maximum limit that can be purchased under the NFIP is $250,000 for a single-family home, even if the home is worth millions.
 
2012-11-01 05:33:03 PM  

skullkrusher: and we're talking about the necessity for people to live on the water to operate shipyards. Not what insurers categorize hurricane damage as.



The whole argument started because a poster said people don't need to live in areas where private insurers won't cover their hurricane damage.

I said that was pants on the head retarded, because that would eliminate areas that cover our ports and shipyards.

You claimed that ship builders and longshoremen don't need to live in "floodplane" to build ships.

I'm pointing out that anyone who lives in any area that could be remotely touched by a hurricane technically lives in a "flood plane", because insurers categorize all hurricane damage as "flood damage" whether it has to do with floods or not. This includes people living hundreds of miles inland and away from rivers, much less "2 miles".

So, yeah, the conversation kinda has to do with insurers.
 
2012-11-01 05:33:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

a conversation that I started with my Honda Mules? See, what's happening is what "multiple posters" are doing is trying to argue against and argument that hasn't been made because that's how liars roll.

I have to agree your initial "Honda mules" post was inherently dishonest as has been your attempts to reddefine thediscussion.

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

You chose to dishonestly characterize the post you were responding to, and by continuing to insist that your chosen mis-characterization of the initial post is the only legitimate basis of discussion. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as just being foolish and stubborn, but now I must admit that your entire involvement in this thread as been based on dishonesty. Thank you for leading me to that realization.

why didn't you bold the first part? Oh, that's right. Because you're a liar. Or is "populations" a new word for "ports" that I am unfamiliar with?


That part makes you no less dishonest. Your dishonesty was in trying to limit the discussion to only those who actually work at the docks. The actual post refers to the relationship between shipping ports and wealth and commerce, and the populations that are required to fill all those roles, not just the dockworkers that you are pretending are the entire basis of discussion. It is no coincidence that the financial district was so near the flooding.

Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.
 
2012-11-01 05:34:14 PM  

The Only Jeff: Philip Francis Queeg: He's never made flood risk a part of his argument.

"What we're talking about it the necessity of people living in Breezy Point, Long Beach, the Jersey Shore, etc because access to the ocean is necessary for commerce and wealth building. No, seaports and refineries need to be on the water. People don't need to live there. Our great cities were build on rivers and the ocean because back then you couldn't commute 20 miles to go to work."

" I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either."

"no, I'm not. The ONLY thing I am arguing - which began as a joke about Honda Mules - is that it is not necessary for people to live in flood plains to maintain and run shipyards."

Seems like he was talking about flooding to me.


whoa, slow down. You can't expect him to read and understand an explicit statement of the point. It gets in the way of him making an ass of himself and he lives for that. iFlagellant.
 
2012-11-01 05:34:21 PM  
Its good to see the Fark community finally standing up for a program that benefits the 1% ers.

I want my beach house rebuilt no matter how many times its destroyed. I want to live on the beach and thank you (taxpayers) for insuring me at a reasonable cost.

My insurance company said they would write flood insurance on my beach house for $75000 a year but gov't program was only $1500.
 
2012-11-01 05:34:29 PM  

Bloody William: Then it has fark-all to do with flood insurance (which, incidentally, does adjust and cartegorize premiums based on historical tendency towards flooding) and the discussion at hand. This is a week after the worst hurricane to hit the northeast and one that entire states and cities are still recovering from. This isn't about a handful of houses that were built right on a river. It is intellectually dishonest to connect the two in the context of this discussion.


People on the coast or on a river would lose everything. Past that critical few thousand feet and the damage would be much lessened, or even non existent. I lived five miles from the James River, and every hurricane we have never had issues with flooding, only with a tree or two being knocked over. If people had to pay the true cost of living in a flood plain, they would not live there. Then we wouldn't have the problem of having to rebuild their houses for them. Federally subsidized flood insurance is the only reason people can afford to live next to a huge body of water that floods.
 
2012-11-01 05:34:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.


hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.
 
2012-11-01 05:35:04 PM  
He is playing by current rules while seeking to change them. This is not hypocritical. An al manager doesn't bat a pitcher in the Dh spot in protest. Stop this moronic argument.
 
2012-11-01 05:38:07 PM  

Cyberluddite: I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but you seem to be missing a very basic premise of the concept of insurance. And that's this: The basic concept of buying insurance protection to protect your assets is to put you in the same position you were in before the loss, which means that, for purposes of property insurance, "Value" or "worth" = cost of reconstruction. That's how almost every residential property insurance policy is written, and flood insurance is the same. In a down real estate market (and in run-down areas), this may mean that the reconstruction cost is more than what you could sell the property for on the open market, but you're paying premium based on the reconstruction cost, not the mark ...


You could buy insurance at its true cost. You could insure your house for $250,000, or for replacement even, if you were fine with $70,000 annual premiums. But people can't afford those premiums. Logically if you can't afford to insure something, then it's either not worth what you're insuring it for, or you're not rich enough to own it. People want to be able to pay $600 a year for $250,000 of coverage. Of course no insurance company would do that. The reason these homes are "uninsureable" is because those people shouldn't be living there.
 
2012-11-01 05:39:56 PM  
This is one reason I prefer land value taxation to most other forms of taxation. If the government subsidizes flood insurance, it raises the value of land prone to flooding. At least with LVT, part of that increased value would be flowing back to the community in the form of higher taxes.

/The same with seawalls, dikes, and all other infrastructure improvements.
 
2012-11-01 05:42:11 PM  
hahahaha.

my capital-L Libertarian relative is in love with John Stossel. He also gleefully takes advantage of Medicare, and has made ample use of NPR and PBS in is lifetime. Fark it if he will give the latter any money voluntarily. (on a related note, even though the ACLU helped him a couple times, he won't give them money, the excuse being they took some case he didn't like).

On a recent visit, he left out a Stossel book on a table. I flipped through it and saw a chapter on Title IX. Really? REALLY? Wellllll public schools are Stalinist communism to begin with. But giving girls equal money for athletic activities is downright Maoist! (or something). Girls learning leadership, team skills and developing athletic ability? What a waste of money!
 
2012-11-01 05:42:25 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.


I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.
 
2012-11-01 05:49:21 PM  

The Only Jeff: You could buy insurance at its true cost. You could insure your house for $250,000, or for replacement even, if you were fine with $70,000 annual premiums. But people can't afford those premiums. Logically if you can't afford to insure something, then it's either not worth what you're insuring it for, or you're not rich enough to own it. People want to be able to pay $600 a year for $250,000 of coverage. Of course no insurance company would do that. The reason these homes are "uninsureable" is because those people shouldn't be living there.


A bigger reason that this risk is "uninsureable," even in lower-risk areas, is because it's catastrophe coverage, which means that most years there will be no losses but in other years there will be catastrophic losses, often before the insurer has built up enough premium to pay for those catastrophic losses. These what's known in the insurance industry as "low frequency, high severity" risks, and they tend to sink insurance companies. Please take a look at my long post at 2012-11-01 04:08:42 PM above, in which I've attempted to explain this concept in some detail.
 
2012-11-01 05:52:24 PM  

MyRandomName: He is playing by current rules while seeking to change them. This is not hypocritical. An al manager doesn't bat a pitcher in the Dh spot in protest. Stop this moronic argument.


It's just another self righteous libertarian douche enjoying the benefits of the social contract of government, which he's certainly entitled to do, while deriding anyone else who enjoys them as a weak self entitled dependent suckling on the teat of government.
 
2012-11-01 05:56:27 PM  

Cyberluddite: The Only Jeff: You could buy insurance at its true cost. You could insure your house for $250,000, or for replacement even, if you were fine with $70,000 annual premiums. But people can't afford those premiums. Logically if you can't afford to insure something, then it's either not worth what you're insuring it for, or you're not rich enough to own it. People want to be able to pay $600 a year for $250,000 of coverage. Of course no insurance company would do that. The reason these homes are "uninsureable" is because those people shouldn't be living there.

A bigger reason that this risk is "uninsureable," even in lower-risk areas, is because it's catastrophe coverage, which means that most years there will be no losses but in other years there will be catastrophic losses, often before the insurer has built up enough premium to pay for those catastrophic losses. These what's known in the insurance industry as "low frequency, high severity" risks, and they tend to sink insurance companies. Please take a look at my long post at 2012-11-01 04:08:42 PM above, in which I've attempted to explain this concept in some detail.


That's the point of a sinking fund. If you know every five years all of your homeowners will have a claim for catastrophic collapse, you need to charge high enough premiums to pay for that every five years. If the premiums are appropriately high, it doesn't matter how many claims you get.
 
2012-11-01 05:57:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.


I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.
 
2012-11-01 05:58:54 PM  

Egalitarian: hahahaha.

my capital-L Libertarian relative is in love with John Stossel. He also gleefully takes advantage of Medicare, and has made ample use of NPR and PBS in is lifetime. Fark it if he will give the latter any money voluntarily. (on a related note, even though the ACLU helped him a couple times, he won't give them money, the excuse being they took some case he didn't like).

On a recent visit, he left out a Stossel book on a table. I flipped through it and saw a chapter on Title IX. Really? REALLY? Wellllll public schools are Stalinist communism to begin with. But giving girls equal money for athletic activities is downright Maoist! (or something). Girls learning leadership, team skills and developing athletic ability? What a waste of money!


I remember incredulously watching a 20/20 one time as John Stossel said, with a straight face, that there shouldn't be a National Parks system and that our parks should be broken up and sold to private land owners because private land owners inherently take better care of their property than government because they have more invested in it.

Lesse ....

This...

www.worldnewsinn.com

vs.

www.waldeneffect.org
 
2012-11-01 06:04:05 PM  
I have always thought of Libertarians as quirky, but open minded and principled.

Since 2009, Libertarian has become this 'fark-you, I have mine' mindset, that is anti-government, but is pro-war, anti-poor, never anti-corporation, and is OK with religion.

I heard of a self-described Libertarian Evangelical. Libertarians should not care about who you fark in bedroom, if you are married, if your soul is saved, or what chemicals you choose to put in your own body.

Republicans have made Libertarian another word for Republican after George W made Republican look bad. Now they are making the word Libertarian look bad.

I want the word Libertarian back from the party of small government. They can find another word to use.
 
2012-11-01 06:05:41 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.

I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.


Your response to Imnroshi was a case study in dishonesty and illiteracy, as is most of your posting here on Fark. Normally that would just be annoying, but combined with your delusions of intellectual superiority it really becomes the best sort of tragicomedy.
 
2012-11-01 06:12:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.

I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.

Your response to Imnroshi was a case study in dishonesty and illiteracy, as is most of your posting here on Fark. Normally that would just be annoying, but combined with your delusions of intellectual superiority it really becomes the best sort of tragicomedy.


That was the one you responded to with "don't you live in Manhattan", right? Lulz.
 
2012-11-01 06:14:45 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.

I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.

Your response to Imnroshi was a case study in dishonesty and illiteracy, as is most of your posting here on Fark. Normally that would just be annoying, but combined with your delusions of intellectual superiority it really becomes the best sort of tragicomedy.

That was the one you responded to with "don't you live in Manhattan", right? Lulz.


Yes I verified where you lived. You got me on that. Masterful.
 
2012-11-01 06:21:53 PM  
Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).

Sorry libtard, try again with your fake outrage and stupid article written by someone who has never read a book or knows what their talking about
 
2012-11-01 06:22:19 PM  
I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.

The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.
 
2012-11-01 06:24:02 PM  

jake3988: I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.

The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.


He became an asshole long before his 20/20 days.
 
2012-11-01 06:25:26 PM  

jedihirsch: Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).


So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?

Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?
 
2012-11-01 06:27:50 PM  
schrodinger
jake3988: I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.
The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.
He became an asshole long before his 20/20 days.


Wasn't it Stossel that had his ears boxed when he was interviewing someone unwilling and probably roided up WWF wrestler?
 
2012-11-01 06:28:10 PM  

jake3988: I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.

The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.


I liked him on 20/20 also (ashamed to admit it). Now, I just think he is a complete dipshiat.
 
2012-11-01 06:31:47 PM  

Egalitarian: my capital-L Libertarian relative is in love with John Stossel. He also gleefully takes advantage of Medicare, and has made ample use of NPR and PBS in is lifetime.


I'll bet he drives on roads too.

Egalitarian: On a recent visit, he left out a Stossel book on a table. I flipped through it and saw a chapter on Title IX. Really? REALLY?


IIRC, the argument against Title IX is that if you don't subsidize unsustainable girls' sports programs, you're not allowed to have boys' sports programs. Schools have to bleed millions to stay in compliance with Title IX. It simply doesn't take into account the lack of public interest in (paying to watch) most women's sports. Sometimes it kills off entire athletic programs.
 
2012-11-01 06:32:50 PM  
schrodinger
jedihirsch: Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).
So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?
Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?


I think he is attempting to make the point that if private insurers priced him out of the market then he wouldn't be force to be an asshole and ownhome on the beach which he does not believe is economically rational. But since he can he will.

Ignoring that private insurance may or may not pick this up, and this is his second home, unlike some people whom need this for a primary home.

/Just help him to stop being a selfish asshole. That is what he wants.
 
2012-11-01 06:33:34 PM  

schrodinger: So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?

Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?


Nope, he's saying that thanks to the poor saps forced to pay taxes to fund the government insurance program, he gets to have this nice house on the beach at a much lower cost. Thanks, all you saps out there! And by the way, this program should be abolished.
 
2012-11-01 06:34:32 PM  

Enemabag Jones: unlike some people whom need this for a primary home.


like?
 
2012-11-01 06:38:50 PM  
jigger
Enemabag Jones: unlike some people whom need this for a primary home.
like?


No I don't, why do you ask?
 
2012-11-01 06:40:40 PM  
John needs to go suck a bag of dicks.
So his stupid mouth will be occupied with something better to do than spew shiat.
 
2012-11-01 07:13:02 PM  
FTA

Unlike private companies, the government can also require homeowners in flood hazard areas to purchase insurance

So it's quite possible that he's required to participate in the insurance directly.

Secondly, if the Federal government chooses to subsidize the risks of coastal homes, that's not his doing and he's under no obligation to avoid it - he like everyone else is on the hook for taxes to pay for the subsidy even if he didn't own such property. Liberals who favor higher government spending don't send the Feds more money than they owe, and they still take every deduction they qualify for.

The hypocrisy claim is BS, but that doesn't stop the kneejerk leftie FarKoser wharglebargle.
 
2012-11-01 07:19:05 PM  
yeah, few things annoy me more then "Libertarians" who preach the virtues of "small government", all while cashing the checks from government programs. But, a nuanced view of the world doesn't lend itself to book sales or face time on the tube, so we get the morons we've got.
 
2012-11-01 07:30:54 PM  

Emposter: Libertarians are like unicorns, except people take them less seriously.

Modern libertarians are just like the idiot tea-partiers who continue their nonsense claims that they're a real, separate party. Oh, sure, we vote for republicans, we run in Republican primaries, we caucus with Republicans, but we're totally independent. We're not Republicans at all.

Just more Republicans ashamed to be called Republicans.

/please, someone say Gary Johnson


Gary Johnson. He is certainly a much better human being than Mitt Romney, he was successful in business without the advantages of vast inherited wealth, and the complete absence of scruples that characterize all of Romney's ventures,, he was a very competent governor who left office with high approval rates, again, completely unlike Romney. And yet the GOP picked Romney. Whatever you want to say about libertarians, they didn't sink to that level of flailing disgusting failure.
 
2012-11-01 07:42:09 PM  

knobmaker: Gary Johnson. He is certainly a much better human being than Mitt Romney, he was successful in business without the advantages of vast inherited wealth, and the complete absence of scruples that characterize all of Romney's ventures,, he was a very competent governor who left office with high approval rates, again, completely unlike Romney. And yet the GOP picked Romney. Whatever you want to say about libertarians, they didn't sink to that level of flailing disgusting failure.


i.imgur.com

Seems legit.
 
2012-11-01 08:12:08 PM  
Came for a variation on "fark you, pay me, that's why." Explanation, leaving....satisfied and saddened.
 
2012-11-01 08:53:18 PM  
I never understood the "libertarian" position of the state returning some of the money it took in taxes in the event of an emergency. You're getting your money back, so what are you biatching about?
 
2012-11-01 09:51:28 PM  

Bloody William: schrodinger: Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.

John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?

Does he have a mortgage? Because private enterprise might be forcing him to get an insurance policy he doesn't want, if the house is at risk of flooding. The bank might require NFIP protection.


The bank requires flood insurance. NFIP just allows him to get it at below market rates, subsidized by everyone else who didn't buy a house in a flood plain.

Get rid of NFIP and make people pay fair market rates for insurance. An insurer WILL provide a policy at some rate. No reason that taxpayers should give some a subsidy just because they bought a house in a risky area.
 
2012-11-01 10:37:12 PM  

schrodinger: jedihirsch: Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).

So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?

Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?


He's saying that private insurers would do it if the govt didn't force them out of the market. And since he has no other option if he wants to live there, he'll take whats available until the situation changes. And as he says, even if you disagree with it, if they are offering the money, why not take it
 
2012-11-01 10:44:41 PM  

LoneWolf343: I never understood the "libertarian" position of the state returning some of the money it took in taxes in the event of an emergency. You're getting your money back, so what are you biatching about?


It's the use of tax money for that purpose in the first place. It wouldn't work if everyone just got reimbursed.
 
2012-11-01 11:05:43 PM  

jedihirsch: He's saying that private insurers would do it if the govt didn't force them out of the market.


So right off the bat, he makes a false claim. The only reason why government is involved is because private insurance either wasn't wiling to fill in the gap, or because they went belly up and unable to pay whenever something bad happened.

And since he has no other option if he wants to live there, he'll take whats available until the situation changes.

Why doesn't he have the option to simply move?

And as he says, even if you disagree with it, if they are offering the money, why not take it

Because it makes him a hypocrite.
 
2012-11-02 12:07:15 AM  
CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?
 
2012-11-02 12:32:23 AM  
Another so-called "libertarian" who is a hyprocritical jerk.
 
2012-11-02 12:33:18 AM  

SunsetLament: CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?


Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me $50.
 
2012-11-02 01:12:38 AM  

Bucky Katt: Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me back my $50.


Correction - you left out two words, I put them back in for you.
 
2012-11-02 01:41:13 AM  

SunsetLament: Bucky Katt: Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me back my $50.

Correction - you left out two words, I put them back in for you.


Next up: John Stossel deposits 10 cents in the "leave a penny" jar. Then demands that the cashier give him back $50.
 
2012-11-02 02:14:51 AM  
Dear Mr. Stossel,

I believe there is a certain thing you are desperately lacking, so I found just the person to give this thing to you:

i28.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 05:03:14 AM  
I liked Stossel's reports on 20/20.

He's gone soooooo downhill ever since he traded his journalism in for "opinionism."
 
2012-11-03 11:32:25 AM  

Bucky Katt: SunsetLament: CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?

Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me $50.


LIBERAL: Make it $100. But we split it down the middle and put it on our children's tab.

CONSERVATIVE: Done!
 
2012-11-03 05:42:55 PM  

skullkrusher: LoneWolf343: I never understood the "libertarian" position of the state returning some of the money it took in taxes in the event of an emergency. You're getting your money back, so what are you biatching about?

It's the use of tax money for that purpose in the first place. It wouldn't work if everyone just got reimbursed.


Oh, alright, then we just won't give that tax money back.
 
Displayed 187 of 187 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report