posted on October 30, 2003 03:18:49 AM new
As sad as it is to lose one, the ugly fact is they are paid and often paid well for their JOBS.
Is their job to get out and fight fires, there is always the chance that they my not come home, just as it is with a police officer.
It is sad that a firefigher died... however that is a volunteer position and I for one thank them for doing their jobs, but do not agree with "giving" anything to a firefighters fund or other for fireman for doing their JOB.
posted on October 30, 2003 06:14:33 AM new
One problem with giving money to disasters such as this is that the charitable organizations who collect and hopefully distribute the money are so corrupt. Besides that, I don't believe that a society such as ours should have to rely on charity in order to survive. Our government should generously fund those people who have lost their businesses and homes in California to this horrific disaster. If we can rebuild a country that we chose to destroy, we should be able to rebuild California and that should be our first priority.
And...most of us in this poor economy don't have money to give away.
Helen
Firemen, like policemen should all have excellent disability benefits and death benefits for the care of their families.
posted on October 30, 2003 06:55:03 AM new
"Our government should generously fund those people who have lost their businesses and homes in California to this horrific disaster."
Why? Why should the rest of us have to pay for losses by people that build their homes in tinder boxes?
posted on October 30, 2003 07:47:21 AM newOur government should generously fund those people who have lost their businesses and homes in California to this horrific disaster. If we can rebuild a country that we chose to destroy, we should be able to rebuild California and that should be our first priority.
And...most of us in this poor economy don't have money to give away.
Um, the government money you think should be flowing so freely comes from...US. And if the government jumped in & Generously funded everyone in the country who has been hit by a natural disaster, we'd all soon be broke.
I don't agree with this ever-increasing trend to want the government to take care of our every need.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on October 30, 2003 07:52:06 AM new
Twelve -I don't think that when people contribute to funds for the families of fallen fiefighters it actually has anything to do with money. It is just a way for the average person to say that they respect and honor the loss of someone so willing to put it all on the line every day for strangers.
Tex - first - most of the areas burned in the first coupple days could hardly be considered to have been built in Tinderboxes, second, if you feel that there should be no help for those that exist in areas more prone to danger should we just go ahead and wipe out FEMA? Eliminate all huricane relief, no need to help those silly people in Oklahoma when they get hit by hurricanes? Just say to hell with helping our fellow citizens and we'll all just fend for ourselves from here on out?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 30, 2003 08:15:49 AM new
twelvepole - but do not agree with "giving" anything to a firefighters fund or other for fireman for doing their JOB.
Since that would not be a forced or required donation, I think it's great there are those who want to say 'thank you' in this way, no matter the persons occupation.
------------
tex1 - My answer, in this case, is that a lot of areas in CA are ripe for this because of the lack of rain, high winds, etc. Way too many areas this would cover, not just those who build their homes around forests.
I do agree with your line of thinking when it comes to areas that continually flood and homes are destroyed. They rebuilt, only to be again taken by more flooding. And we the taxpayers end up footing the bill. IMO, those people should have some restrictions placed on the number of times they can rebuid in a flood area and expect to be compensated for on going loses. They could have built on higher ground.
posted on October 30, 2003 09:13:19 AM new
Tex- my ooops - to early in hte morning, I was think about the huricans while typing about tornados... just be thankful I was not chewing gum too.
Tex-- mind telling me where the naturally occuring tinderboxes are? I menan they are not in the suburban areas such as Scripps Ranch, or in desert communities like Arrowhead. Where are those natural tinderboxes that people are knowingly moving into?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 30, 2003 09:24:59 AM new
Some of the firefighters also lose their homes in the fires, it happened in B.C. Other firemen were faced with the "wall of flame" and luckily got out alive but suffered severe trauma from it.
In B.C. the politicians flew over the fires and promised funding but so far the people haven't been helped by the governments. The more well-to-do people got insurance settlements immediately and are already having new homes built. But in one town the major employer, a sawmill was destroyed and won't be rebuilt and some people didn't have insurance and the ones that did are getting stalled by the insurance companies.
But men from different church denominations from across Canada have banded together and are doing volunteer work to build homes for these people. Another lady started a fundraiser and made sure each child was given a new bicycle. Students from other places worked to make sure that each student in the town that was ravaged by fire got a new backpack and school supplies. Trucks of clothing and household items as well as food have been coming into all the communities that need aid.
Each time there is a disaster it is mostly the help from other goodhearted people and agencies, not the government that gets the victims back on the road to recovery.
posted on October 30, 2003 10:08:12 AM new
[Using Kiara's statement to ask/understand the thoughts of others.]
Hope you don't mind Kiara, it's just that to me your post opened up a lot of good questions on the subject of 'who should pay' when these disasters strike. Just as twelvepole did on offering, or not, extra compensation to the firefighters.
The more well-to-do people got insurance settlements immediately and are already having new homes built.
Not understanding why the well-to-do would get immediate insurance payments, but
and the ones that did are getting stalled by the insurance companies wouldn't. I don't understand why this would be.
But in one town the major employer, a sawmill was destroyed and won't be rebuilt
Why won't it be rebuilt? Did the business not carry insurance on their structure to replace it in cases like this? Or was the business not doing well enough to warrant rebuilding it?
and some people didn't have insurance. Why would they not carry fire insurance on their homes? It's always been my understanding that anyone who has a mortage is required to have minimum fire coverage on their homes. Most morgage companies require fire insurance at least to the amount of the loan they are granting. And if they don't pay for insurance, then I don't understand why we should have to pay to rebuild for them. I pay for fire insurance, they don't and I should then pay [via taxes] to rebuild theirs because they were saving themselves money.
posted on October 30, 2003 10:21:12 AM new
Linda, your right in your understanding about carrying the minimum of fire insurance on your ins. policy when you are holding a mortgage. At least that is what its like in MY AREA. This could differ, from county to county, or even area to area.
We have every type of insurance on this house, Mike even put 'mortgage insurance' on this place, which is way too pricey IMO, in case of death or disability.
And yes, fire is included on our policy.
Oh, I don't think we have earthquake ins.
And if kiara is in Canada, the ins. could differ significantly than in the U.S. .. but don't know for sure, never owned property in another country.
And, sorry bout blowing up on the other thread yesterday! You all are off of Time outs
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 30, 2003 10:24:31 AM new
Another thing.. about people who do not have property insurance. You absolutely have to have the minimal requirment of insurance, if you are still holding the mortgage... making mortgage payments on the house... If you have paid off your mortgage, you could and can drop property insurance, but its crazy to do so! IMO.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 30, 2003 10:32:48 AM new
fenix03,
A natural error. I knew what you meant and it was rude of me to point it out. The Prince of Darkness made me do it.
One has, only, to watch the TV reports to see what is going up like a tinderbox. The mud slides will be next. Unlike natural disasters, it takes just one match to cause all of this misery.
posted on October 30, 2003 10:36:50 AM newAnd if kiara is in Canada, the ins. could differ significantly than in the U.S. .. but don't know for sure, never owned property in another country. Yes, I understand things might be different in another country, state, county.
It's just that in reading the statements of bunni, tex1 and I think twelvepole, I began to wonder why we need these government agencies to make 'everything all better' for those who chose not to protect themselves, their property, their businesses by purchasing insurance to cover these potential damages.
Those of us who are unwilling to carry insurance on our homes or business to be able to replace them if needed, are in a sense taking a 'gamble' that nothing will happen to it. But if that gamble doesn't work in their favor, we the taxpayers pick up the cost. [just thinking outloud]
To me that's like deciding to pay extra for uninsured motorist damage. I question why I should have to pay for that insurance because others don't want to pay to insure themselves. I do pay for not only my own insurance, but also the additional coverage, because it's a risk I don't want to take.
----------
And, sorry bout blowing up on the other thread yesterday! You all are off of Time outs no problem on my end....sometimes we need someone to step in and say 'stop'.
posted on October 30, 2003 10:39:42 AM new
Tex - No Worries. I am the last person offended by someone pointing out my errors and the first to admit that they are numerous when it comes to my typing. My brain and hands operate completely independently.
I am unaware that there are such things as desert and lowland mudslides
Some of the areas effected may see some mud slides but since San Diego gets a whopping 8 inches of rain a year it's not likely. The highland areas that are getting burned out are snow areas so mudslides there will be unlikkely. LA will of course have its yearly mudslides though and once again Malibu Canyon road will need repairs but you have to understand that most of these homes lost down here are not in wooded rural areas - Scripps Ranch, where almost 400 homes were lost is one of those wonderful planned communities that are landscaped out and you where you can spit into your neighbors window. This is hardly an area where one would expect to fall prey to wildfires.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Oct 30, 2003 10:42 AM ]
posted on October 30, 2003 10:47:40 AM new
No one is being bailed out by government agencies BTW. Most of the homeowners effected have insurance which is taking care of not only the rebuilding expenses but living expenses in the mean time. Those that need additional assisitance are eligible for low interest federal LOANS not grants or hand outs.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on October 30, 2003 10:52:31 AM new
We recently had floods up north of us here. There were people being interviewed, that said 'And we have no insurance' And that was more than one person saying this.
I DON'T understand this. You own a home, you have to have insurance. You drive a car, you have to have insurance. You buy a new car, you better get full coverage. And if you are making payments (like a mortgage) you won't get that loan unless you HAVE Full coverage.
If all these people were renters, ok, then the homeowner has to have property insurance, it was up to the renters to get renters insurance, something most young people do not ever think of. But if you add up all that you would have to replace, unless you have money to burn (no pun intended) one is hard pressed to replace everything.
Its a price we pay on a regular basis, its a part of life. We all hope that we never have to use that insurance, but damned glad we have it, if the unexpected does happen.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 30, 2003 10:55:27 AM new
Thank you fenix.
I was just remembering back to the earthquakes in CA [San Cruz hills] where those who carried some level of earthquake insurance didn't appear to fair as well has those who didn't carry any earthquke insurance, at all] on their homes.
I just question at times, the thoughts of others who hold the opinion that the government is responsible for doing for some, what they choose not to do for themselves.
Just to be clear, I have no problem with low cost loans to help people out in times like these. Just doesn't seem like it would be necessary if everyone protected themselves.
posted on October 30, 2003 11:18:29 AM new
Earthquake insurance is a seperate policy in California. The deductables are so high that unless it is a complete total the policies rarely pay. The premiums are as high as fire/liability etc. Floods are not coverered by a standard homeowners policy either. Because of urban overcrowding much land is being developed that is in areas that have not had human habitation before. The residents of these areas often do not take the necessary prcausions to reduce the chance of fire (keeping adjacent brush clear etc.) once one of these things gets stated the only thing that seems to stop them is when all the available fuel has been exhausted.
Republican, the other white meat!
posted on October 30, 2003 11:31:50 AM newEarthquake insurance is a seperate policy in California. Yes I know. We paid just under $1,200.00 a year for our earthquake [only] coverage.
Floods are not coverered by a standard homeowners policy either. When we lived in Huntington Beach it was required, when purchasing our home, that we carry flood insurance. It had been deemed that the home we were purchasing was located in a 100 year flood zone. If we did not pay for either our fire insurance or flood insurance, the mortage company would buy the policy for us and bill us for the premium.
posted on October 30, 2003 09:24:52 PM new
Linda_K, I don't know why people don't get insurance. Maybe they think bad things will never happen to them? Or else they fall on hard times and they can't afford it? Or perhaps they have already had other claims and costs have risen so much they can't afford it anymore?
Because of the wildfires, many were unable to renew their insurance policy.
posted on October 30, 2003 10:09:10 PM new
“It is sad that a firefigher died... however that is a volunteer position and I for one thank them for doing their jobs, but do not agree with "giving" anything to a firefighters fund or other for fireman for doing their JOB.”
12; Next time you find yourself stuck in a burning building and volunteers are flying up stairs like troops to save you; while certain other ‘paid’ servants of your nation are sitting in an elementary school pretending to read books upside down; at least be ‘thankful’ enough to tell them how you really feel about moral obligation.
If you can’t afford to give $, then I’m sure they’ll understand.
You’d wish you didn’t come across the conservative compassionate brigade.
They’d probably take the morning off ‘entitlement’ to attend parent-teacher day.
And to think you accuse the left of not supporting the troops….HMMMM!
posted on October 31, 2003 05:40:07 AM new
once again you speak about something you know nothing about austbounty... they VOLUNTEER for the JOB... Have you ever held a job austbounty or is that 3 letter word and also the four letter word "work" strange to you?
My point is that these people volunteer to become firefighters and with that job there is a certain amount of danger involved...
considering all that NZ and AU owe us, they better get their azzes over here.
posted on October 31, 2003 05:41:30 AM new "Can you imagine -- the fire is raging ... and they walk into their insurance company here to be told that the major reinsurers have pulled out?"
From Kiara's news article.
Yes, I can imagine that.
That's a very interesting article about insurance denial in your area, Kiara. Insurance prices are not afordable for a lot of people here also. The price of insurance is prohibitive in some areas because such catastrophies are anticipated and priced into premiums. Some premiums will go up after this fire. The insurance companies will dance around that possibility with spin that would make Bush jealous but just wait and you will see it happen.
As Standard and Poors warned, "until the fires are under control, this is an evolving story." After years of keeping premiums down in a battle for market share, insurers have generally spent the last two years raising premiums and tightening restrictions to increase profits.
LaTimes
I guess you missed this question. We would love to hear your answer.
posted on October 30, 2003 06:55:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Our government should generously fund those people who have lost their businesses and homes in California to this horrific disaster."
"Why? Why should the rest of us have to pay for losses by people that build their homes in tinder boxes?"
posted on October 31, 2003 06:19:18 AM new
Should we fund people that have their house burn due to lightning strikes, or their kids playing with matches? Are their losses any less?
"Most people want to help those who have suffered such catastrophic loss due to no fault of their own."
How is it "no fault of their own"? When someone builds, or buys a house, in a fire prone area, why are they not at fault. Even this dumbazz Texan knows better.
Immediate food and shelter should be provided, but after that they should be on their own.
I don't care how many times they rebuild in the same areas, just don't ask me to pay for it.
