| Author |
Message |
    
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5406
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 - 8:47 pm: | 
|
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Earthquake_Roulette.html
More Californians forgo quake insurance
By SCOTT LINDLAW
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
Charlie Bott is seen at his home in San Francisco on Friday, March 10, 2006. Bott got an offer in the mail recently for earthquake insurance, he stared long and hard at the bottom line. Then he threw it away. Californians have built vast metropolises atop seismic faults, but 86 percent of the state's homeowners have no quake insurance, a proportion that has crept upward as memories of past quakes fade. (AP Photo/Jakub Mosur, File)
SAN FRANCISCO -- When Charlie Bott got an offer in the mail recently for earthquake insurance, he stared long and hard at the bottom line. Then he threw it away.
"It was way beyond anything you pay for house insurance. Not even in the same league," said Bott, a nuclear engineer with a baby on the way.
Now, like millions of others, he is hoping that the Big One doesn't strike, and if it does, that the government will come to the rescue."
More...... |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4152
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 5:53 am: |
|
Interesting. I would have thought that quake insurance was required in order to secure a mortgage. |
Freshwater Films
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 6040
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 8:22 am: |
|
I think that, like flood insurance, there should be mandatory quake insurance. I just did a test application for quake insurance in San Francisco. My "house" was a two story home with a finished basement, had 1800 square feet of living space, was built in 1956 (a year after the quake construction requirements were enacted) and I required 500,000 of coverage and my yearly quake insurance bill was 2,880.00.
Now I may be waaayyy off but that doesn't seem like an amount that would make me throw away the paper and count on the gov't. Now I realize that many who live in SF cannot afford a home much less insurance, but those that do and choose not to should not be given federal support. And I am a democrat. Go figure. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5408
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:37 am: |
|
It's right up there with those on the Mississippi or any other river that semi-annually floods it's banks. You can't blame them. They've been conditioned to depend on the government because they see it going on elsewhere, so why bother? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:50 am: |
|
A $500,000 house has a $75,000 deductible. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2694
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 11:04 am: |
|
"It's right up there with those on the Mississippi or any other river that semi-annually floods it's banks. You can't blame them. They've been conditioned to depend on the government because they see it going on elsewhere, so why bother?"
Flood insurance is a business-friendly subsidy to developers, by and large.
Although as I understand it, if your property is inundated and disappears, lets say in a hurricane, you get compensation for the structure, but not the land value. Might not be too much. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
non-story.
how many San Franciscans without earthquake insurance went running to the feds for money after the '89 quake? and if they did, it would have been in the form of loans, not grants anyway.
the article makes it clear that people aren't buying the insurance because it's a bad deal. high deductibles and high premiums. I'm sure the typical homeowner will take out a home equity loan and repair their property if it's damaged in a quake. typically, U.S. homes are far better able to withstand a quake than a hurricane, so comparisons to LA or FL are apples and oranges. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13149
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 5:20 pm: |
|
I agree that there should be laws requiring insurance where it makes sense. That way, people won't take undue risks. Individuals can't assess risks as well as insurance companies who have a lot of data and also have a lot of money at stake.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11017
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Haven't been involved with quake insurance in any detail, but in the past in the past in addition to the first loss deductible, the 75k Dave23 mentions, there was a ten to twenty percent coinsurance clause, meaning you only collect 80 to 90 percent of your loss in excess of the 75k deductible.
For home insurance the flood program is underwritten and sponsored by the Federal government. A lot of people feel that the existence of the coverage has caused overbuilding in high risk coastal areas. |
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 7:09 pm: |
|
I agree that there should be laws requiring insurance where it makes sense. That way, people won't take undue risks.
MY GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE MOMMY AND DADDY!!!!
I WANT MY GOVERNMENT TO PUT SOFT PADDING ON EVERYTHING SHARP AND RUB MY TUMMY AT NIGHT!!!
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13156
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 9:33 pm: |
|
Libertarian, my point is that I don't want the government bailing people out. They should make informed choices. But information is not as obvious as we'd like it to be. Do you understand actuarial tables? Most of us just pay our insurance premiums without asking to see the tables.
If insurance is not required, people will not know the risks, and they won't be paying the true cost of setting up shop in risky places. I want them to pay. Don't you?
I recently read that the reason cities grew and thrived after the 18th century was because of laws that required fire insurance. In places where people couldn't afford it, people didn't build.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page