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   ( divider line
    More: Dumbass, John Stossel, flood insurance, news, money back guarantee, National Flood Insurance Program, floods, Steve Doocy, federal government  
•       •       •

2368 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-01 03:46:30 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:28:30 PM  
1 vote:
Fun Fact: John Stossel's mustache is insured with Lloyd's of London for $1,000,000
2012-11-01 03:24:14 PM  
1 vote:
"Paging Dr. D, Dr. D, we have a smarmy douchebag who needs re-application of whoop-ass medicine, code blue."
2012-11-01 03:19:48 PM  
1 vote:
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.


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 03:13:53 PM  
1 vote:
David Shultz should have slapped him harder.
2012-11-01 03:01:03 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:41:02 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:18:30 PM  
1 vote:
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?
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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.