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  
•       •       •

2365 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






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