- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: $32K max from FEMA but the average is $7500 paid out?
Posted on 8/17/16 at 11:03 pm to stout
Posted on 8/17/16 at 11:03 pm to stout
Stout, I have to preface this because you are one of my favorite posters/contributors on this site both here and on MT. This is NOT an attack! haha. Just my interpretation.
My 'bad comparison' to offer is antidotal. One of my cars is paid for and is about 12 years old. I carry liability and uninsured motorist only on it. If something were to happen to it, my thought process is the money that I saved not paying ridders and extras, I could use to put towards another car. If it goes, it goes. I've gotten plenty use of it. I can't fathom someone would take this approach (no insurance) to a house that has been paid off let alone one that still has a mortgage. Maybe I'm just a bad American.
Sure these are trying times and some people's situations are downright shitty. I feel for many of them. But shite happens. If you gamble and don't hedge your bets, and you lose, you can't expect the casino to just give you free money.
My $.02
Keep being you, baw.
quote:No. Its no different. The risks of either potentially happening are proportional to the policy's premiums and deductibles and the like. If anything, the flood insurance is a much better deal premium to payout ratio, albeit the risk of flooding could be less(dependent of flood zone of course). As far as FZ changes, wouldn't someone want to stay up to date with something that has the majority of their money tied up in it?
Why? What's wrong with this statement? If you own a car and don't have insurance, should the government replace your car if you get in a wreck?
A little different, though. Flood zones changed and the potential of flooding isn't nearly the same as getting into a wreck. Bad comparison.
My 'bad comparison' to offer is antidotal. One of my cars is paid for and is about 12 years old. I carry liability and uninsured motorist only on it. If something were to happen to it, my thought process is the money that I saved not paying ridders and extras, I could use to put towards another car. If it goes, it goes. I've gotten plenty use of it. I can't fathom someone would take this approach (no insurance) to a house that has been paid off let alone one that still has a mortgage. Maybe I'm just a bad American.
Sure these are trying times and some people's situations are downright shitty. I feel for many of them. But shite happens. If you gamble and don't hedge your bets, and you lose, you can't expect the casino to just give you free money.
My $.02
Keep being you, baw.
1
Posted on 8/17/16 at 11:09 pm to 3en
quote:
If you gamble and don't hedge your bets, and you lose, you can't expect the casino to just give you free money.
What happens when the casino is required by law to publish the winning percentage of the game, but has poor data to back up their claim?
Posted on 8/17/16 at 11:18 pm to Golfer
quote:
What happens when the casino is required by law to publish the winning percentage of the game, but has poor data to back up their claim?
Ehh, so FEMA told you were not in a flood zone, so you chose NOT to purchase what was incredibly cheap insurance because of their error, and then it floods and now their at fault?
First of all, they don't define flood zones based on extreme, 1000-year or 500-year type events, so it is still possible to flood if you're not in a "flood zone."
Second, if FEMA screwed up and said you weren't in a flood zone, take advantage of their error. Flood insurance is cheap as hell for mid to low risk areas. You may be at a higher risk because of their poor data, but until they change it, you are insuring that risk for what amounts to be a song.
Posted on 8/17/16 at 11:24 pm to Salmon
quote:
the amount of people that live in a flood zone and don't have insurance will be very, very small
try not to derail the thread over an almost non existent issue
Pretty sure LSURussian posted an article a few days back that said roughly 35% of the people in flood zones carried flood insurance.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 6:50 am to stout
So I know people with 700k homes with no insurance but not in flood zones and I know old people with no insurance or money in small homes in flood zones.
So who is more deserving in the assholes in this threads opinion? Both lost everything. The younger people at least have friends to help them.
So who is more deserving in the assholes in this threads opinion? Both lost everything. The younger people at least have friends to help them.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 7:51 am to slackster
quote:
First of all, they don't define flood zones based on extreme, 1000-year or 500-year type events, so it is still possible to flood if you're not in a "flood zone."
Just an FYI because I've seen the X term used often. Shaded X is the 500-year (0.2% chance) event. Unshaded X is everything outside the 0.2% event.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:02 am to stout
Will FEMA issue out $2-3K checks to nearly all individuals affected like during Katrina? This is separate from checks issued to fix the house.
I remember plenty were using those FEMA checks to spend on non-necessity items like expensive purses, electronics, vacations, drugs, etc.
I remember plenty were using those FEMA checks to spend on non-necessity items like expensive purses, electronics, vacations, drugs, etc.
This post was edited on 8/18/16 at 8:03 am
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:09 am to Catman88
quote:
So I know people with 700k homes with no insurance but not in flood zones and I know old people with no insurance or money in small homes in flood zones. So who is more deserving in the assholes in this threads opinion? Both lost everything. The younger people at least have friends to help them.
At the end of the day, most people should have had flood insurance after Katrina. That was the big issue then, people didn't have flood insurance, the levy broke, house flooded and they lost a lot.
The issue for a lot of people that don't believe in this bail out is that a lot of people say my house will never flood, the entire town has to flood to flood my house, as reason's not to purchase flood insurance to the tune of $500 TO $600 A YEAR.
So, the guy who says yeah, i'll spend the $500 or $600 a year for the last 10 years gets nothing. While the guy who didn't want to spend it get's bailed out for a poor decision.
Are their people out there that can't afford the $500 or $600 a year? absolutely. Are there people who honestly didn't know they needed it, yes. However, those who knew, could afford, but decided they didn't need flood insurance, that person should own some responsibility for their actions. How do you decipher that, I don't know.
This post was edited on 8/18/16 at 8:18 am
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:27 am to dos crystal
quote:
Are their people out there that can't afford the $500 or $600 a year?
these are the people i feel for.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:35 am to Mrs. Amaro
quote:
If you live in Baton Rouge or surrounding area... and you live in a floodzone, why wouldn't you get flood insurance?
i don't know of a single lender that would provide a mortgage without flood insurance if the home is in a flood zone. it just doesn't happen.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:39 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:I feel like everyone that has the ability to own a house, can cut out $40 in their monthly budget to afford flood insurance
these are the people i feel for.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:45 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
Are their people out there that can't afford the $500 or $600 a year?
these are the people i feel for.
I feel for them because they were uneducated on the topic, not because of some financial plight. If you are in a moderate risk area, you can get $50,000 coverage plus $20,000 contents coverage for an average of $246/yr.
I'd imagine $50k in coverage will cover 80% or more of claims you'll see in homes outside of a flood zone, and should cover all of the claims of people who "can't afford" insurance. If you need to insure more than $50k, but you can't afford it, you should seriously consider alternative living arrangements because you're taking a huge financial risk.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:47 am to Catman88
quote:
So I know people with 700k homes with no insurance but not in flood zones
Even with insurance the max is $250k structure $100k contents so unless they have the cash to back it up they are screwed anyway.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:49 am to slackster
quote:
I feel for them because they were uneducated on the topic, not because of some financial plight. If you are in a moderate risk area, you can get $50,000 coverage plus $20,000 contents coverage for an average of $246/yr.
I'd imagine $50k in coverage will cover 80% or more of claims you'll see in homes outside of a flood zone, and should cover all of the claims of people who "can't afford" insurance. If you need to insure more than $50k, but you can't afford it, you should seriously consider alternative living arrangements because you're taking a huge financial risk.
I agree with all of this
said the same thing earlier but not worded as wellPosted on 8/18/16 at 8:49 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
sorry if i sound heartless but they wouldn't be crying if they had flood insurance.
Ignorant statement.
We have flood insurance and my wife can't stop crying. Family pictures, heirlooms, sentimental items from our wedding, gifts from loved ones that money can't replace. And not to mention, this will also have a long term effect on us since we're now moving out and never going back to the kitchen we used to dance in, or have a drink in our backyard that we loved so much.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:50 am to Nado Jenkins83
quote:
quote:
Are their people out there that can't afford the $500 or $600 a year?
these are the people i feel for.
I feel for anyone going through this, even those with insurance have a long hard road ahead
If you live in an area that does not require flood insurance then the max policy (250/100) is less than $400/year, and lesser policies are much less, therefore if you live in a house that requires $250k worth of flood insurance ( which would be about a 400k house because you don't insure the land or the slab) then you can damn well afford $400/year and prob half that for for lesser polices, so let's take the "I can't afford it out of the discussion " and people choose to not buy insurance for whatever reason
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:50 am to lsupride87
quote:
I feel like everyone that has the ability to own a house, can cut out $40 in their monthly budget to afford flood insurance
Essentially this. If you cannot, then you probably own too much home. It's not an easy pill to swallow, but it's true.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:51 am to BengalBlood81
quote:
Ignorant statement.
We have flood insurance and my wife can't stop crying. Family pictures, heirlooms, sentimental items from our wedding, gifts from loved ones that money can't replace. And not to mention, this will also have a long term effect on us since we're now moving out and never going back to the kitchen we used to dance in, or have a drink in our backyard that we loved so much.
Nado knows better than you even though you are actually dealing with the aftermath of the storm.
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:52 am to slackster
quote:
Pretty sure LSURussian posted an article a few days back that said roughly 35% of the people in flood zones carried flood insurance.
how? what lenders are giving all these people money without requiring them to have flood insurance while in a flood zone?
are you sure the article wasn't talking about the "flood zone" as in the flooded areas of this event?
This post was edited on 8/18/16 at 8:54 am
Posted on 8/18/16 at 8:55 am to bayoudude
quote:
Even with insurance the max is $250k structure $100k contents so unless they have the cash to back it up they are screwed anyway.
You can get private flood insurance above the $250k, but even without it, $250k worth of flood damage OUTSIDE of a flood zone is a frick ton of damage.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News