It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I see your point, and have seen it raised before, and the question I came back with was this: How many deaths do you think there would have been if a storm like sandy had hit south africa, or any less organized area?
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I see your point, and have seen it raised before, and the question I came back with was this: How many deaths do you think there would have been if a storm like sandy had hit south africa, or any less organized area?
I have no clue. Please educate me on South Africa. Thank you.
It's just when I see a dwelling 100ft from the water line on a fairly flat beach... Can't help wondering.
Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
the way i see it, if you can afford to build on the beach or somewhere that's prone to catastrophic destruction,
you should be able to pay for the insurance to rebuild, or be able to rebuild out of your own pocket.
as the op said you have to know it's a gamble and why should someone else have to pay for your bad decision.
Originally posted by MeesterB
Interesting point. People are all for making smokers pay more under Obamacare since it's risky behavior.
Of course, it's easy to want to keep it around because "but by the grace of God, there go I"
Plus there are a lot of major cities on the coast, so you'd be putting a lot of people out to dry(unintended pun... heh). I don't think it's probable that NY will just up and move until the sea levels rise and it's under 5ft of water.
I also disagree with living on the coast being a luxury. Maybe for some cases, but fishing and shipping require access to the sea, and those are necessary industries.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I dont necessarily agree. I do think premiums should be assessed according to risk, but not done away with altogether.
I did read the article. And I dont agree that federal flood insurance needs to end. Not that tough to grasp.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I dont necessarily agree. I do think premiums should be assessed according to risk, but not done away with altogether.
Well if you read the article, private companies don't usually do that. The premiums would be ridiculous. That's the answer.
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Dont you see? The only reason flood insurance is an economic loser is because of all those homes up in the hill that dont have flood insurance.
What the fed needs to do is mandate that every homeowner buy flood insurance. That way the overall burden is lessened.
If it'll work for healthcare, right?