re: Why do so many not have flood insurance?

quote:

---

LSURussian

---

I have been thru Katrina. Do you really think I would make fun of people that didn't have flood insurance? Trying to make a point that people need to purchase it if you have a home in SE LA. Now if you have your home raised, a camp, highrise buidling, etc., probably not. I wasn't referring to those situations.

I don't because my house sits up on top of a small hill. A flood could theoretically reach it, but I'm willing to take the risk that it won't. It would take a LOT of rain for it to get that high.

I guess I don't understand what the point of this thread is. Those people I'm sure wish they had flood insurance now. Like other things, it cost money and wasn't required, so people didn't think about it.

No one cpuld have ever predicted that 2ft of rain will fall in 24hrs either - asking why people didnt have flood insurance is kind of like asking why they didnt design run off and drainage systems to handle this kind of event. I live in North La and areas around me flooded in March that have never historically flooded due to rain fall. There were lots of homes that were lost where I am sure the cost of flood insurance would have been pocket change.

quote:

---

A big part of the problem that I don't see many people talking about, and could help both groups, would be for NFIP to accept installment payments. Right now, you HAVE to pay flood insurance on an annual installment. For a government-backed program, this is insane.

Allowing monthly or even quarterly payments, I'm willing to bet, would cause more people to purchase it.

---

Could just be added to the escrow. Like traditional homeowners.

quote:

---

No one cpuld have ever predicted that 2ft of rain will fall in 24hrs either - asking why people didnt have flood insurance is kind of like asking why they didnt design run off and drainage systems to handle this kind of event. I live in North La and areas around me flooded in March that have never historically flooded due to rain fall. There were lots of homes that were lost where I am sure the cost of flood insurance would have been pocket change.

---

My point to this thread is that I have spoken to people that don't have it and they just stated that 1, they don't live in a flood zone and 2, they didn't want to spend $400 a year on it. So I understand if you don't live in a flood zone, but I don't get it where people say they just don't want to spend $400 on it. That was my point in the thread.

This is a money board so I am not here to rub it in people's faces. More of a learning moment. If there is a possibility of you flooding, even remotely, then I would buy it for peace of mind.

I hear all the arguments, you should carry more life insurance if you fly because you fly in a plane that could crash, we have never flooded before so we won't now. I have no reason to buy it yet I do. Not an OT baller by any stretch. I think people don't prioritize things when it comes to insurance and finance and just wonder why with all that has happened within the last 11 years alone locally. I get it you can't cover every single possibility but it rains quite a bit and unless you are way high on top of a hill or sky rise building, you should have it.

quote:

---

1, they don't live in a flood zone and 2, they didn't want to spend $400 a year on it. So I understand if you don't live in a flood zone, but I don't get it where people say they just don't want to spend $400 on it.

---

How many people would have car insurance if it was not required?

With flood insurance, it's just a cost that some people either cannot afford or do not think they need.

I can't speak for the BR flooding, but look at the 9th ward in Katrina. Tons of people did not have flood insurance. They probably could not afford it (or maybe could not structure their other spending to prioritize it). They lived in houses owned by family for years with no clear title - houses owned outright.

quote:

---

How many people would have car insurance if it was not required?

---

But that is the thing it is required. Auto insurance and flood are not comparable. Plus you already have a ton not carrying it yet the cops let them drive off if they don't have it. Car should be towed and then the person fined.

I understand people can't afford it. Again, and this is obviously a small percentage, but the few I have spoke to basically said that they would rather blow the money on something else instead of paying. Yet if they flooded they would be screaming about it. I guess I am old school and just want peace of mind, that's all.

I see people have downvoted but just trying to figure out why people don't make this more of a priority. I get it if it was expensive or if you cannot afford it. The people I have spoken to probably blow this in a few weekends going out to eat.

quote:

---

people incorrectly assume that a house not in a flood zone is exempt from flooding.

---

I think this has a lot to do with it. And I think realtors (for example) push this when selling a house - look, this one is out of the flood zone!

Anyway I think this is a conversation better held in a month or so.

quote:

---

But that is the thing it is required. Auto insurance and flood are not comparable

---

How many people with paid for vehicles pay for max coverage in the event in their lifetime they are in an accident where they are at fault and sued for everything they have? My guess is not many people put that thought into automobile insurance where the chances of it happening are the same and the possible outcome of loosing everything you own is a real possibility. Similar thought process when you live no where a water source prone to flooding and aren't required to carry flood insurance.