Fallin asking for FEMA assistance - side fact

[870WingBlaster]

This article states that 85% of the 603 homes lost in the fires were not insured! I guess that I can forgive some living in a $5k trailor or an elderly person with plently of retirement money "gambling" that nothing will happen to their house. However, I cannot understand how at least 95% of the unisured didn't need insurance. Anyone care to share their thoughts on the matter.

http://www.1600kush.com/story.php?id=5377&section=1

 

[dieseltech09]

just another example of the "Nanny State". The Govt will take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves

 

[338Shooter]

I don't think you should get your house replaced by the government if you don't have insurance. That's not the role of government. Charity organizations, churches, friends, family should be taking care of that.

 

[Dave70968]

"Given the tremendous damage suffered in huge areas of the state, I find the response from the White House to be insufficient and unacceptable. I will continue to make the case in no uncertain terms that the federal government has an obligation to assist the hundreds of families and businesses victimized by wildfires in recent days."

Funny, I don't recall seeing the word "wildfire" anywhere in Article I, Section 8.

 

[NikatKimber]

Funny, I don't recall seeing the word "wildfire" anywhere in Article I, Section 8.

I think that's under the "Life Sucks" section of the "School of Hard Knocks" curriculum, in which you learn that if you don't make provision for yourself, you're screwed.

 

[inactive]

I don't think you should get your house replaced by the government if you don't have insurance. That's not the role of government. Charity organizations, churches, friends, family should be taking care of that.

I believe that the government isn't gifting them the money, but are offering loans to help rebuild.


But yea, I agree. I don't think they need to be in the mortgage business either. Tons of other people to help, as you enumerated.

 

[MLRyan]

just another example of the "Nanny State". The Govt will take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves

You mean WE will take care of those who refuse to take care of themselves.

 

[VIKING]

This article states that 85% of the 603 homes lost in the fires were not insured! I guess that I can forgive some living in a $5k trailor or an elderly person with plently of retirement money "gambling" that nothing will happen to their house. However, I cannot understand how at least 95% of the unisured didn't need insurance. Anyone care to share their thoughts on the matter.

Well, I guess the 95% did need the insurance. But I can also understand that my home insurance has almost tripled in the last 12 years. It could be that some of the folks were simply out of a job and didn't have the money. Thankfully I will soon retire without ever knowing how it feels to be unemployed. I for one feel sorry for all the folks without a home.

 

[CHenry]

If I chose to not insure my house and it burned down, that my dumb ass fault and no one elses.
Who the hell would NOT insure there home?

 

[ahamay6]

I feel sorry for those who have lost homes as well, but do not believe they deserve anything other than consolation. Its a harsh, but simple truth. You either choose to assume your own risk, or pay to have somebody else assume that risk for you. The choice is yours.