Am I the only one who thinks that it's a bit rich to expect the Governement to bale someone out who filled their house with expensive stuff but didn't pay a few hundred pounds to insure it or are all these people who claim to need help living in uninsurable houses?
2007-07-05 08:37:08 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Barking - I bet you didn't expect the government to pay for your dog though. The way I see it insurance is like gambling - you can't ask for your stake back if you don't win any more than the lottery will pay out if you tell them you would have won the jackpot if only you'd bought a ticket..................
2007-07-05 08:49:04 · update #1
Betty - I'm not being mean. I agree it must be terrible to be forced out of your home due to flooding, but yes I do have insurance and I live on top of a hill miles from the nearest river. Would you expect the government to reimburse you if you were burgled or your house caught fire..? That is the point of insurance - it protects you against the risk of losing your belongings. In some cases the risk is so great that insurance companies won't cover you but I find it hard to believe that that is the case for very many. I saw on the news someone bemoaning the fact that they had lost a leather 3 piece suit they hadn't finished paying for - well why spend thousands on a sofa and not insure it and why expect someone else to replace it?
It might be that I have misinterpreted what is being reported but it seems I'm not alone........
2007-07-06 09:25:54 · update #2
no, you are not the only one. there's a concept that people fail to hold onto in so many ways it's sickens me. it's called "PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY"!!
2007-07-05 08:40:13 · answer #1 · answered by ktbug222 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No you are not alone. I sympathise with the victims, but how can you discriminate against someone who insured there belongings. Including 5% tax. If you pay out to the people with-out insurance where does that leave the insurance industry?why bother having it at all. How come no one as ask for a public inquiary into why the drains where not cleaned. I know there was a great deal of rain, but from a Friend in Doncaster said that resisdents manage to clear a drain one street away from the flooding and they where OK.
2007-07-07 00:30:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Having diluted sewage in your house must be awful but I can't think of any situation where the government should pay for stuff if someone hasn't bothered to insure it. Just as galling is seeing the piles of white goods & other metal and wooden goods outside people's house on the TV reports. Sure, some electrical items may have been damaged, but why can't other such items just be washed down and dried out? Either they can't be bothered, or they want something better paid by the insurers, which will hit everyone's premiums next year. They say the stuff is ruined then complain when looters take the stuff away!
2007-07-05 16:37:30 · answer #3 · answered by lotsmorewine 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To the less well off a few hundred pounds is not such a throwaway amount; it is likely that the insurance for those flooded houses in the future will be so restrictive/cost prohibitive that many will not be able to get suitable insurance. I think that there is a case for emergency payments to be made and also a claim for compensation from the government as it is has not fulfilled its duty to reasonably protect its citizens from flooding as acknowledged by the reports from government bodies that flood defence budgets are underfunded and activity to utilise funds budgeted has been woefully slow. From the National Audit Office June 2007 "The Environment Agency has made a number of improvements in the management of flood risk since 2001. Despite this, the Agency has not met its target to maintain 63 per cent of England’s flood defence systems in their target condition." see source 1.
2007-07-05 16:54:45 · answer #4 · answered by aac1_uk 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of their is any history of flooding I think it would be impossible to get insurance. Lets face it most of the properties where not on the coast so most people would not take flood insurance out The real inquiry should be why were houses allowed to be built there in the first place. A good long haard look at those who authorised it may well be needed.
2007-07-05 16:05:25 · answer #5 · answered by Scouse 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I couldn't agree more. Unless there is some good reason for not being able to get insurance, whilst I have sympathy for the flooding situation in general, I have no sympathy for people who just don't have insurance because they don't want fork out for it.
2007-07-05 15:42:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
everyone should have home insurance, not because of floods but there are everyday things that could damage your home and its contents. its not that expensive either, you can get insurance for a few pounds a month
2007-07-05 15:45:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are right! What would YOU pay for insurance on the way down?
2007-07-05 15:39:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh most of them had insurance - flood insurance but the insurance companies said it wasnt the water that destroyed their homes but the wind, it was making waves and they didnt have wind insurance.
2007-07-05 15:57:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They did not think it would happen to them. I cancelled my dog insurance because it got to expensive, then he got hit by a car, you just cannot win.
2007-07-05 15:41:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
OMG - I'm shocked to hear all this
where's your humanity and your compassion? Tell you what - I'll come flood your house (I'll even make sure you have insurance) and see whether you can afford it all.
2007-07-05 22:48:15 · answer #11 · answered by bettyflintstone 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋