Will disaster relief affect voting?
 

With the hurricanes and the damage they have done (8 inches of rain in some parts of my area, severe flooding, 1000's of homes and businesses ruined) it seems that a lot of people are up in arms about the small amount of federal relief being offered. Many seem upset that billions of dollars are going overseas while the only relief being offered to them is maybe a 5,000 grant and 25,000 in a low interest loan. In a swing state like my own, I really wonder how this will have an affect on the voting.

Here's a story about the flood victim's views: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04268/384571.stm

Re: Will disaster relief affect voting?
 

$5000 x 3 million people affected = $15 billion . . . and that's a conservative estimate.

Add in the up-front cost of no- or low-interest loans . . . jesus, that's a lot of money.

I'm pretty sure everyone on the planet is pro-disaster relief, but it's hard for me to jive with these xenophobic, "BILLIONS OF OUR DOLLARS GO OVERSEES"-type sentiments, b/c they implicitly ignore the fact that billions of dollars are going right here, to hurricane and flood victims. It's always worse when it affects people personally.

That said - will it affect the election? Probably. Should it? Probably not, in this man's opinion - a ton of money is being thrown at the problem. I don't really get why this sort of damage is a federal problem, to start, but I feel like there is an enormous amount of cash going in, even if it seems small on an individual level.

Quick question for dani, since I'm far from the area - how much do people think would be satisfactory? How much is enough money?

It is always a problem when people start to look to the government to solve all of their problems. IMHO, if you didn't have insurance, you were an idiot and should be SOL.

Once again...not that simple. I know your view of the world is quite myopic.

Are you even aware of all the things FEMA does? It's not welfare for lazy hurricane victims. It provides assistance to state and local governments to get their infrastructure back as soon as possible in order to allow people to return to work, school, and their homes. Less than 48 hours after people were allowed to return to the counties devastated by Ivan, roads that were washed out during the storm were repaired and fully operational again--thanks to FEMA. FEMA funded the state and local efforts to bring extra trucks to haul away debris, pays for crews to restore power and water to the cities affected by hurricanes, and all those other things you probably aren't even aware of.

For insured homeowners, they provide emergency grants or loans to provide for temporary housing (which often consists of trailers since hotels are usually booked to capacity after a major storm), repairs that can be done immediately, and other claims that an already taxed insurance industry cannot process right away. Remember, this is Major Storm #3 for Florida. For those who do not own their homes, temporary housing can be provided. For people who have lost their jobs (even temporarily) due to a storm, FEMA provides emergency grants. More assistance is given to the insured than to those who are not, as sometimes insurance does not cover every single loss that might occur on a piece of property. FEMA also funds counselors who come in order to help people who have lost homes and family members because of the storm, and legal counseling to those who might need it.

Now, please tell me how these people are "looking to the government to solve all of their problems." Please tell me how these people are "idiots."

---------------------
As far as the money impacting the election, I really doubt it will. The President isn't really in control of how much money is given for emergency management, and most people know that. The same stuff that's happening now has happened after every major disaster, regardless of administration. People get money, the President tours the "most devastated areas," so forth and so on.

The people affected in my area, Pittsburgh, as well as Wheeling WV and surrounding areas, don't have insurance for this sort of thing. It's never happened before. Regular homeowners doesn't really cover much in the event of flooding- flood coverage is totally separate and very very few people have it. This extreme of things has never really happened up here. So calling people "idiots" b/c they don't have insurance isn't really right. Also, a lot of the areas that were hit were very much lower middle class and people don't have the money to spend on that sort of insurance.

I really don't know how much money would be enough, i'm fortunate to live on a big hill that overlooks one of the hardest hit areas in PA. But I read the article, and I thought it was interesting. These are the undecided Joe six-packs that both candidates are going after. PA and WV are both swing states with lots of undecideds. So I just thought it could be interesting if it affected it at all.

It's not fair for any of us who've never been in this situation, to never have lost everything in your home or your business, to call anyone idiots or make judgements.

I see what you're getting at. I know that the two candidates are neck and neck in Florida, with Bush having a slightly smaller lead. I don't know who they were actually able to poll, and where. In light of recent events, the poll can't be too representative of the entire state.

In addition to what Munchkin explained, depending on where you live in Florida (only addressing FL b/c that's where my experience lies), and what time of year you move/apply for insurance, it's very hard to get hurricane coverage. When my sister moved from one area in FL to another area last year (in July, of course!), they almost lost the house b/c they couldn't get their carrier to cover their since they were in hurricane season, and they moved to a "more exposed" area. They were finally able to get it, but it's just an example of why people might not have that coverage. Not b/c they didn't want the insurance or have the $$$ for it, but b/c sometimes insurance carriers can be a pain in the butt!

It shouldn't be the federal government's responsibility to restore local and state infrastructure. That responsibility belongs to the providers of services, the municipalities, etc. IMHO. When the F5 tornado wiped out most of Midwest City here in the OKC metro, FEMA was out there basically handing out free $ to people that didn't have insurance -- yeah, they call it "grants".

If you move to such an area, it should be your responsibilty. If FEMA did not provide this service, the municipalities, state, etc. could do a fine job I'm sure.

It's perhaps necessary to some extent, just not nearly to the extent that it is used.

No, the smaller municipalities CANNOT "do a fine job" after having their entire infrastructure destroyed. (This is what's going on right now with my hometown, which has basically been blown off the map.) There's only so much a small town can do--especially when the larger cities that might normally help them out in a crisis can't do it. Right now, in Florida, the state is stretched to the limit. Three major hurricanes in a month, with every county of 67 having been declared a federal disaster area, exhausts the capabilities of a state rather quickly. I see no problem with the federal government stepping in when the situations are as severe as they are at this moment, when the state and local governments are stretched to their limits.

Until you experience a situation like this firsthand, you are in no place to judge what people should have or should not have done.

Oklahoma City has had its share of natural disasters, thanks.

We did get FEMA money for Midwest City, OK when a mile-wide tornado came through with winds above 300MPH. It completely leveled the place. I mean there were almost NO standing structures remaining in the area.

As I recall, FEMA just gave money out to those folks some were insured, many weren't.

I'll guarantee you that Florida expenditures per citizen effected will probably end up being far above what they were here just because of the importance of the state in the election.

Just my guess.

I am required to get flood insurance because I live in an A1 zone. That said, my neighborhood hasn't flooded in the 25-30 years since it has been built. It covers none of my personal property (I could purchase more, if I could afford it, but I can't). My regular home owners is $788 a year, my flood insurance this year was $1180. My home owners covers everything in my house, my flood insurance only covers the physical structure, furnace, hot water heater, and washer and dryer that are in the basement.

kddani was talking about the flood damage in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, where people don't usually buy hurricane insurance. The vast majority of people who aren't required to buy flood insurance, don't. It's not a crime to not buy insurance for something that is extremely unlikely to happen. It's extremely unlikely that people in some of these areas that flooded from Ivan would ever get as much rain in as short of a time period as they did.

I don't see why we would even consider turning our backs on our citizens, after they've lost everything they owned, their place of employment is destroyed or closed indefinitely. It's called compassion. You're just going to let families live on the streets with no access to their money, their belongings, anything? That would be completely barbaric.

Dee

ETA: I never answered the original question. I think it could affect the election because people tend to vote on how things are for them RIGHT NOW. I don't think that's fair, but it's the reality.

But, according to some people, they deserve it because they didn't care about "personal responsibility" and expected the government to take care of everything.

We've already seen this effect here in Orlando. When Charley hit on August 13, we were two weeks away from a primary election for sheriff. The incumbent completely blew his challenger out of the water. After the election, a lot of people interviewed said they had changed their vote because "he did a good job after the hurricane." Not to mention all the free airtime he got in those 2 weeks leading up to the election.

By Kerry Sanders
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET Aug. 12, 2004MIAMI - As hurricane season begins to pound its way home with the threat of Hurricane Charley and Tropical Storm Bonnie, coastal residents in Florida and throughout the southeast are frantically make preparations to ward off disaster. But even if the storm doesn't make landfall, they've likely already paid a tremendous price for living where they do.

advertisement

In the hurricane zone homeowners live in fear, and this year, it’s not only the storm threat, it's the cost of hurricane insurance.

Kathie Hartie in Galveston, Texas, like others near the coast in her state, is paying an average of 75 percent more than just four years ago. Her insurance bill this year will be $3,500.

“I've been here for 40 years. My family has owned this house and I would hate to not be able to live here because of the cost of insurance. Is it going to end? I don't know," said Hartie.

On the South Florida coast, the cost of insurance has spiked even more.

rest of article From another article
There's a 30-day waiting period on flood insurance from the time you apply to the day it's effective. If you wait to call your agent until the hurricane warnings go up, it's too late.

Likewise, when a hurricane watch or warning is announced, agents lose their "binding authority" -- their authority to enact insurance policies -- until the watch or warning is canceled.


They had interviewed someone on our local news in Detroit who had moved to Florida late this summer and wasn't able to get covered in time. Some folks can't afford an extra $4000-6000 a year, and others weren't able to get it when they tried. I still say it's barbaric to not help them.

Dee

As for loans with low or no interest why not? For people that are covered with insurance it does take time to have the insurance company come out and make an assessment, and then cut a check. The government is going to get that money back in the form of a loan so why be against that too?

I totally agree.

Some people are uninformed about the realities of what it takes to get insurance in other areas of the country. Plus, if your policy has ever been cancelled, it's hard to get affordable insurance from a reputable insurer--and you end up paying out of your nose for a substandard carrier.

To the person who called the flood victims "idiots" for not having flood insurance, here's an excerpt from a story in the paper today:

"Businesses in Carnegie, in particular, are facing a difficult time because they weren't eligible for flood insurance. Despite Chartiers Creek overflowing its banks 11 days ago, the borough's business district isn't considered to be in a flood plain, so insurance isn't available; regular business insurance doesn't cover damage caused by floods, so no one will reimburse them for their losses.

"These are not people who were told they needed flood insurance and decided they wanted to save a buck and didn't buy it," said Onorato, noting that as of yesterday, 1,060 businesses across the county reported flood damage."


Honestly, all I want is a retraction of the statement calling people idiots. I drive through this town every day, and even now, a week and a half later, it is an absolute mess. These people have also been told that they will not be able to receive ANY grant money.

You're out walking the street in a nice quiet neighborhood and get shot in the chest. Should I call you an idiot for not wearing a bulletproof vest?

My next door neighbor has home insurance/hurricane insurance with Allstate. After 3 storms ripped through our area in a month's period, I don't think there's a single person in the neighborhood who doesn't have extreme roof damage and most have interior water damage. My roommate's insurance (State Farm) gave her more than enough to cover the cost of fixing the damage. Our neighbor is not so lucky. Her second floor is sinking into her first floor. Her dry wall has turned to mush. Her roof has a hole in it. Allstate gave her $3500 which will probably only cover new paint to the interior. This is happening to people all across Florida where insurance companies are basically trying to find loopholes to give their customers as little money as possible. My neighbor had an independent contractor come out who estimated her damage at $28,000. :eek: She certainly doesn't have the money to pay that money for repairs and then feed her kids. She is asking FEMA for help. She had insurance coverage but Allstate isn't helping her. I suppose this makes her an idiot.

Look, guys, ktsnake was obviously wrong to refer to anyone as an "idiot" for the purposes of a natural disaster, even if he feels that way - it's outside their power to help being a part of it, so let's just get back to the topic.


Now that we've established a need for FEMA and disaster relief, the next step is deciding how much is enough. ZTAngel pointed out that, in her neighborhood, almost every house had severe damage - I would assume that is the case in large segments of both Florida coasts. Dani has given us a great first-hand account of the flooding in Pittsburgh and surrounding areas.

So now what? FEMA is intended to get local infrastructure on its feet, and provide assistance when able to keep people from using unsafe water and not having access to basic necessities - from those of you in the areas, is this happening?

I don't really buy the argument that "billions goes overseas" - I've already explained that there are billions of dollars going to the disaster relief, as well - but I would completely buy into it if these basic needs are not being addressed.

Also, what more needs to be done? If this immense number of people have damage to their homes, are low-to-no-interest loans an amicable solution for everyone? Or does the federal government have a duty to put up more money beyond the efforts of FEMA to restore infrastructure and basic services, and help these people rebuild? Does insurance, or lack thereof even play a part in this decision?

And if Allstate (or etc) is dicking over its customers, shouldn't we be on their ass, from a governmental standpoint? That's just awful.

Actually, the government probably helped finance the infrastructure in the first place. At least in terms of highways, government buildings, etc. Go read the construction signs in your nearest major highway "cone zone." It is also in the governments best interest to get utilities working ASAP -- particularly communications and power.

Otherwise, the government does a lot of things simply on a humanitarian basis. And, in reality, what is happening is that some of the victims tax money is simply being loaned or given back.

In terms of the insurance, it's a huge mistake not to have it. My impression is that most of the victims do -- but claims take time, and being for profit businesses, the inssurance company will do anything it can to save the bottom line. The other thing is that some folks simply can't afford it, and my suspicion is that, just like any other kind of insurance, once you put in a claim, the premiums will skyrocket.

I realize the election is over but I wanted to share this article:

Link

Allstate stops writing policies in Florida
In the wake of four hurricanes, the state's largest property insurer wants the Legislature to address deductible issues.
By Associated Press
Published November 12, 2004

NEW YORK - Stung by more than $1-billion in losses from this year's hurricanes, Allstate Corp. has stopped writing new homeowners' insurance policies in most of Florida until the Legislature makes some decisions about sharing future storm risks.

Allstate's chief executive officer, Edward Liddy, said Thursday the company lost $1.06-billion as a result of hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne hitting the southern United States, much of it in the company's Allstate Floridian unit.

The losses, he said, "wiped out all the profits" the unit had made on its Florida policies since Hurricane Andrew hit the state in 1992.

Insurance Services Office Inc., an actuarial firm, estimates the four hurricanes cost property and casualty insurers $20.5-billion, just more than the $20.3-billion that Andrew cost in inflation-adjusted terms.

This month, Allstate, the largest property casualty insurer in Florida, said it was tightening guidelines on new policies. Allstate is the one of the nation's largest home and auto insurers.

On Thursday, Liddy said that while Allstate Floridian was renewing existing policies, it wasn't writing new ones in most of the state until legislative issues were resolved.

"To keep adding capital until we know our relationship with the (state catastrophe) fund isn't prudent," he said.

The Legislature plans a special session next month to consider changes in property insurance laws. Gov. Jeb Bush and the state's chief financial officer, Tom Gallagher, are pushing to change a law that lets insurance companies charge separate deductibles for damage from different storms in the same season.

Many of the state's hurricane victims this year suffered through two or three storms and were hit for a large deductible for each.

Liddy said if the law is changed to limit insurance companies to collecting a single deductible per policyholder per season, then there should be a change in the way insurance companies are given access to the Florida hurricane catastrophe fund. The fund kicks in as a backup to insurance companies.

A proposal before the Legislature would lower the damage amount an insurance company must pay before it could get help from the catastrophe fund.

Liddy said that regardless of the outcome in the Legislature, Florida policyholders likely will see rate increases, especially in central parts of the state that had not in the past been consider major hurricane risk areas.

He also said he expected Allstate Floridian would have to buy more reinsurance. These are backup policies that insurance companies buy to spread risk.

Liddy emphasized that Allstate hopes to remain in Florida and other fast-growing states.

"You can't think of getting out of Florida. . . . You have to grow where the people are," he said.

Oh, boohoo, Allstate lost $1.06 billion in Florida. Not that they don't have billions more coming from customers in other states to cover that loss.

I have no sympathy for Allstate. After seeing how they screwed over friends, neighbors, and co-workers who have homeowners policies with them, I will NEVER buy any policy from that company. Refined thugs.