*Katrina Wasn't GW Bush's Fault*

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I am getting rather sick of hearing my President cow-towing down to the Liberals about the Governments response to what happened in New Orleans.
2. The place where any freaking body can be Mayor.
3. There is way to many morons saying this Government not only didn't help fast enough but also had a hand in the failure of the levee's.
4. Like smart ass Spike Lee knows sh!t from chocolate.
5. These morons want GWB to freak in admit he did this!
6. All you bastards who want to blame GWB on Katrina can go straight to hell!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Labrocca]

Well they must believe GWB is God then if they blame him. It was an act of nature combined with a long-term federal, states, and local foul-up of the levee funding and strength. Seems pretty clear to me though that a lot of blame is on that mayor and governor. I remember the 2-3 days before it hit and everyone was worried about it. WTF...these people should have been evacuated. People just like to bitch. When the Towers went down and my business went into a slow ruin I didn't fucking blame our government. Shit happens and I simply moved on. I really wish we didn't rebuild that place. It needs to be the sewer it's meant to be.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I keep telling everyone.

KKKarl Rove and Dick Cheney used the hurricane control device in the "undisclosed location" bunker to wipe out the blacks in NOLA.

Damn, when will people learn the truth?

[bobbylien]

These days all the liberal blogs and democratic leaders can do is blame Bush for everything.
I think Bush has rightfully taken some of the blame for the slow reaction after Katrina. FEMA failed miserably, he needed to take responsibility for that.

[veritas1204]

You know, it's funny to me that everyone from Farrakhan (who believes Bush blew up the leavies to kill black people) to Nagin (who called the WTC a "hole in the ground", said New Orleans "was ordained by God to be a majority african-american city" focus all of the nation's attention on New Orleans, to the point that most people have all but forgotten that Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Texas were JUST AS DEVESTATED, and faced the same problems as those in NO did.

And still they are denied any publicity for the way they have dealt with this horrible disaster. The governor of Mississippi summed this idea up pretty well when he said (and i'm paraphrasing) " the people of Mississippi are not into victimhood, and chose to pick each other up by the bootstraps and rebuild instead of looking for someone to blame. We were just as devestated by this disaster, and are all but overlooked because we chose to help ourselves instead of pointing the finger." He said those words in front of congress, immediately after Gov. Blanco (LA) gave her testimony during the FEMA investigation.

I for one have seen firsthand what this storm did to the poor people in its path, and find it disgusting that people like Spike Lee presume to make a requiem of Katrina

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I blame the stupid people of New Orleans.
2. I blame the insurance companies who won't pay for flooding.
3. I blame them for taking the peoples money and then making there a difference from one natural disaster than another.
4. Insurance should be all inclusive, not only for certain disasters.
5. I blame the government of New Orleans for not double indemnifying these residents with their own Insurance on these homes, knowing that over 75 percent of these poor stupid people in a flood plain are not carrying flood Insurance.
6. To protect the tax base, and the infrastructure.
7. I blame Bus Boy Nagin.
8. I blame slow to act Blanco.
9. I do not whatsoever blame President Bush.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

Welcome Veritas!

I think what we need to keep in persective is that New Orleas was different. As I've said many times Mississippi and Alabama didn't have a levee system that broke and left entire cities under water for over a month.


What I blame Bush for is waiting two days, before acting. Anyone with a TV set, computer or access to any newpaper could see that the state, the mayor, the governor and the citizens were over whelmed. Isn't that a leaders job?

People are so worried.....don't speak aganst the government. Don't speak against the troops, up to and including don't vote for Democrats.....it only emboldends the enemy.......if you don't think that the enemy watching for 4 days, the suffering and total inactivity and inept the way the government.......and I mean that from mayor, to FEMA, right on up to this administration handeled this tragic event and said.......look they can't even handle a natural disaster, can you imagine what we can do, you're in for a rude awakening.

As for Spike Lee......any of you criticizing the documentry actually sit down and watch it? There was maybe a total of 10 minutes of what the government did and didn't do........the rest of the 3 hours and 50 minutes was consentrated on the impact this had on the citizens.

[dsanthony]

You know, it's funny to me that everyone from Farrakhan (who believes Bush blew up the leavies to kill black people) to Nagin (who called the WTC a "hole in the ground", said New Orleans "was ordained by God to be a majority african-american city" focus all of the nation's attention on New Orleans, to the point that most people have all but forgotten that Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Texas were JUST AS DEVESTATED, and faced the same problems as those in NO did.

And still they are denied any publicity for the way they have dealt with this horrible disaster. The governor of Mississippi summed this idea up pretty well when he said (and i'm paraphrasing) " the people of Mississippi are not into victimhood, and chose to pick each other up by the bootstraps and rebuild instead of looking for someone to blame. We were just as devestated by this disaster, and are all but overlooked because we chose to help ourselves instead of pointing the finger." He said those words in front of congress, immediately after Gov. Blanco (LA) gave her testimony during the FEMA investigation.

I for one have seen firsthand what this storm did to the poor people in its path, and find it disgusting that people like Spike Lee presume to make a requiem of Katrina


Spike Lee is a 2nd rate artist and a 3rd rate thinker.

You're absolutely right that the govt of LA and NO, and the people, bear most of the blame. People cry "It took 2 days to get aid there". They've obviously never had to organize a company picnic, let alone relief on the scale that was required after Katrina.

[Rider]

Chess wrote- ...
2. I blame the insurance companies who won't pay for flooding.
3. I blame them for taking the peoples money and then making there a difference from one natural disaster than another.
Sorry Chess, you're way off base on this. The insurance companies sold flood insurance to those who paid for it. They then paid the claims on those policies. People who chose the cheaper non-flood damage policies got exactly what they paid for.
And, you're free to start your own insurance comany and charge what you want for whatever you want to cover.

[lily]

Are you sure about that, Rider? Maybe it's just Nationwide that getting off the hook, but I don't see other insurance companies not trying to follow suit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14362386/

Judge: Insurance policy excluded flood damage
Ruling could set a precedent for hundreds of other court challenges

John Brecher / MSNBC.com
Judge L.T. Senter Jr.'s ruling could set a precedent for hundreds of
other court challenges to the insurance industry for denying billions of
dollars in claims after the Aug. 29 hurricane ravaged the coasts of
Louisiana and Mississippi.

Updated: 6:24 p.m. ET Aug. 15, 2006
GULFPORT, Miss. - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that an insurance company’s
policies do not cover damage from flood waters or storm surge in a decision
that could affect hundreds of upcoming cases related to property damage from
Hurricane Katrina.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ruled that a Mississippi Gulf Coast
couple cannot collect damages from storm surge caused by Katrina because
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.’s policies do not cover wind-driven water
damage.

Senter Jr. said Paul and Julie Leonard of Pascagoula could be compensated
for damage that they could prove was caused by high winds, however.


“Almost all the damage to the Leonard residence is attributable to the
incursion of water,� Senter wrote in the 13-page decision.

Senter’s ruling could set a precedent for hundreds of other court challenges
to the insurance industry for denying billions of dollars in claims after
the Aug. 29 hurricane ravaged the coasts of Louisiana and Mississippi.

Although Senter ruled that Nationwide’s policies do not cover damage from
storm surge, the judge also concluded a key policy provision the company has
used to deny coverage is ambiguous.

Nationwide and other insurers say their homeowners policies cover damage
from a hurricane’s wind, but not in cases where it resulted from a
combination of wind and water.



“This reading of the policy would mean that an insured whose dwelling lost
its roof in high winds and at the same time suffered an incursion of even an
inch of water could recover nothing under his Nationwide policy,� he wrote.

“From our perspective, it lifts a very large cloud of uncertainty that has
been hanging over the insurance market of the Gulf Coast,� Joseph Annotti,
spokesman for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said in
reaction to the ruling. “A healthy insurance market is absolutely key to a
rejuvenated economy down there.�

Shares of most property and casualty insurers rose following the ruling,
amid a generally surging stock market.

“It’s a favorable first decision for the industry,� said Fox-Pitt Kelton
analyst Gary Ransom. “I never really had much doubt that this was the way it
was going to work out. There’s a lot of precedent for this. It’s not like we’re
interpreting these contracts for the first time.�

The Leonards had estimated the total damage to their home at $130,253. They
said $47,365 in damage was caused by wind. Nationwide paid only $1,661,
blaming the remainder on the storm surge.

The couple’s attorneys had asked for more than $158,000 for the damage to
the house and its contents, plus interest and attorneys’ fees and expenses.
Senter, however, ruled that Nationwide only owed the Leonards about $1,228
more than what the company already has paid them for wind damage.


It's a chicken or the egg kind of thing. Which came first, the wind or the rain?

[Rider]

Lily-
Seems to me that the ruling backs up what I said. Hurricane insurance has never been flood insurance. That's why they're sold separately. If that were not true, why would anyone buy flood insurance? Why would we have flood insurance provided through the federal government?

The judges' statement- “This reading of the policy would mean that an insured whose dwelling lost
its roof in high winds and at the same time suffered an incursion of even an
inch of water could recover nothing under his Nationwide policy,� he wrote.
This doesn't sound reasonable and I doubt seriously that any insurance company would try to pull that.

[lily]

Rider

Seems to me that the ruling backs up what I said. Hurricane insurance has never been flood insurance. That's why they're sold separately. If that were not true, why would anyone buy flood insurance? Why would we have flood insurance provided through the federal government?

Actually, that's not what you said to begin with.....but that's neither here nor there.


This doesn't sound reasonable and I doubt seriously that any insurance company would try to pull that.

....unless I'm reading it wrong.....that's exactly what Nationwide is saying.

Either way Rider, the government is going to end up paying for it. If Nationwide or any other insurance company started paying out what the policy holders believe their policy covers, then the government would have to bail them out, because they were broke.

Just upsets me, that people pay those premiums faithfully expecting never to have to use it and when they do.........this happens.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But these folks are getting the royal shaft.
2. Hurricanes tend to have flood waters, including rain that blows sideways, and waves coming from the oceans.
3. These folks being denied a fair shake on their claim of Hurricane damage is getting typical to most big business, I blame it on the freak-in lawyers.
4. Electric Company's are ripping people off.
4.a) Gas Company's too.
4.b) Gasoline Company's, goes without saying really.
5. Cell Company's are as well, outlandish disconnect fee's
6. Its getting real hard to not get run over by these huge profit making machines.
7. And the courts as a whole are not standing up for the small guy anymore.
8. I think its being paid off.
9. Far easier to pay off a judge 5 million, than 40 thousand people, 200k.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

Is this one of the signs of the Apocalypse, I agree with chesswars!

[Rider]

Lily, hurricane insurance has never included flood insurance. Flood insurance is purchased separately. Private flood insurance is either too expensive or unavailable in some areas and this has brought about federal flood insurance (through FEMA, I believe).

No Lily, this happens after every major hurricane. People either bought their insurance without reading the policy (and most are VERY clear about it; some states require special wording) or they're just trying to strong arm the companies into paying for their losses.
If the government ends up paying the bill then insurance as we know it will collapse. Why would anyone insure their home after that?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no hurricane no floodings.
2. So in fact the reality is, the hurricane did it.
3. Does it say or not say in the policy that if a hurricane hits your house, with wind or any other effect, its covered?
4. Does not matter it was water of any kind, be it flying water coming in as rain, or pooled waters coming in in waves.
5. If there was no hurricane, then no problem, so in fact what ever came from the hurricane, seeing its an act of Gawd, it should indeed be covered, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. Don't sugar coat this and try to get me to swallow it down!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

Lily, hurricane insurance has never included flood insurance. Flood insurance is purchased separately. Private flood insurance is either too expensive or unavailable in some areas and this has brought about federal flood insurance (through FEMA, I believe).

No Lily, this happens after every major hurricane. People either bought their insurance without reading the policy (and most are VERY clear about it; some states require special wording) or they're just trying to strong arm the companies into paying for their losses.
If the government ends up paying the bill then insurance as we know it will collapse. Why would anyone insure their home after that?


What you say makes sense, Rider.......but it doesn't explain why these people took the insurance companies to court.

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry bout that,

1. But no hurricane no floodings.
2. So in fact the reality is, the hurricane did it.
3. Does it say or not say in the policy that if a hurricane hits your house, with wind or any other effect, its covered?
4. Does not matter it was water of any kind, be it flying water coming in as rain, or pooled waters coming in in waves.
5. If there was no hurricane, then no problem, so in fact what ever came from the hurricane, seeing its an act of Gawd, it should indeed be covered, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6. Don't sugar coat this and try to get me to swallow it down!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


There is, of course, a difference between wind-blown water damage, and flood water damage.Â*Â*One can suffer a tropical storm or a hurricane, and get wet, and one can have a sunny day and levee break because of snow melting a thousand miles upstream, and get wet.Â*Â*Or one can have both at the same time.Â*Â*One can even have a hurricane that forces a levee break.

Needless to say, the New Orleans levee busted after the hurricane was past.

Since an insurance policy is a legal document, it has to be as specific as possible in it's description of what is covered, so that opportunists seeking fraudulent loopholes won't defraud the insurance company and thereby force premiums up on all the other policy holders.

Bottom line?Â*Â*Read the damn contract. If you're too stupid to read it yourself, hire someone.

[Labrocca]

Since an insurance policy is a legal document, it has to be as specific as possible in it's description of what is covered, so that opportunists seeking fraudulent loopholes won't defraud the insurance company and thereby force premiums up on all the other policy holders.


The opportunists are the insurance companies and their lawyers looking for ways NOT to pay.Â*Â*There was wind, water, hurricane, and flood damage.Â*Â*Basically the insurance companies pick which one you weren't covered and deny you on that basis. It's bullshit.

The insurance companies simply don't want to pay until the very last minute.Â*Â* The problem is that denying a claim and losing in court costs them about them same as just paying up.Â*Â*I am sure lots of people don't get lawyers or pursue the insurance company. Heck people might die by the time the insurance company has to pay.Â*Â*The insurance companies have piles of lawyers they already pay.Â*Â*They are NOT penalized by denying a claim that is later turned over by the court.Â*Â*So...they just deny deny deny.Â*Â*

[Rider]

Labrocca,
Flood insurance covers your losses when your house is standing in 8 feet of water, not hurricane insurance. If the water flowing into your driveway from storm surge picks up your car and slams it into your home I doubt the insurance company would cover the damage under auto liability, either.

[sbannon]

If you read through the ruling from the Judge in favor of Nationwide, he clearly says they used ambiguous language that would allow them to deny payment on nearly all hurricane claims ever made under the policy. The wording says they will cover wind damage, but not combined wind and water damage.

In other words, everyone with that policy is absolutely covered for the next dry hurricane that comes along.

Such language in an Insurance Policy treads the fine line of legality. There are laws to protect consumers from this and I believe the Judge's ruling leaves room for the insured and perhaps even Prosecutors to go down that path if they choose to.

I had an Uncle who once had a Life Insurance Policy that only paid if he was killed while riding a train that was hit by a plane. That's a true story. The Insurance industry has traditionally used language in policies that allowed it to separate the uneducated and even average Americans from their money with minimal risks or without any risk of payouts at all. Laws have been created to stop that and I'd like to see them enforced here. There's obviously something wrong with a hurricane insurance policy which can only be claimed in the event of a dry hurricane.

[Rider]

I would really like to see this dubious wording as this type of lawsuit has been common in the past and has been addressed in most states affected by hurricanes.

[Nathan Brazil]

sbannon - I agree that the contract should be plainly worded and honest. If that isn't the case, the insurer should be tarred and feathered and staked out on an ant hill.

Also, after the Northridge earthquake, California Insurance Commissioner Quackenbush (no, I'm not making this up. San Fernando Valley sent a man named Dick Mountjoy to the Senate, too), took a low payment from the insurance companies and absolved them from their obligation to pay damages to their policy holders. That's just bull. People should carry their own insurance and not become a burden on the public, and insurers should pay out on claims to the insured when necessary.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But these folks or any others, affected by any hurricane, that have insurance on their home, should in fact be able to make a claim, and get full payment for their loss.
2. This kind of business is bad business.
3, And to rip off people when they got nothing to go home to is an freakin OUTRAGE!!!!!!!
4. I GAWD DAMN THEM MOFOS TO HELL WHO DO THIS!!!!!
5. This kind of business is what's wrong with some billing agencies.
6. Many, and I do mean many business's rip off the public as a way of doing business.
7. Like I stated before, in a list in an earlier post in this thread.
8. This I see as a fundamental dissolving of our own infrastructure, that we have rights to.
9. When others have more power than the people, Americans in general have a huge problem.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[lily]

I'm going to have to agree with you again, chesswars....this is getting scary!

[Rider]

Geez Chess, if you don't learn to let it all out, you'll have ulcers for sure.

Don't you get it? When you buy insurance for your home you select the coverage that you want or need. I don't have flood insurance on my home as I don't live anywhere near creeks, rivers, etc.. Flood insurance wouldn't cost me much for the same reason I decided not to get it. Now NO is below sea level and sits on the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. Consequently, flood insurance is extremely expensive. I believe that FEMA offered lower cost flood insurance in that area as some companies wouldn't take the risk at all. A lot of people either couldn't afford it or chose not to, relying on good fortune and the levee system.

Unfortunately for them, they lost the gamble. Why should the insurance companies, who received no flood insurance premiums from these people now have to pay damages?

Now, if there was anything crooked going on that's a different matter all together.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this *Flood Insurance* is a recent add on.
2. An add on of what the Insurance Companies won't be liable for, this is where they gigged the public in general.
3. When natural disasters were all covered before that, including floods.
4. But the insurance companies saw a way to double bill, take it or leave it they say, pay double or go without, *You Choose*.
5. This is double talk, gobbledygook, and they should all be shut down who do this.
6. They should close their doors now.
7. Or go back to providing,* Full Coverage* for any and all natural disasters.
8. This is a fundamental outrage to all people who even buy home insurance.
9. And its sad that the government allows it.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Rider]

Chess,
I have home owner's insurance that covers me from damages that my home might suffer in this area. Flooding is not a danger where I live. Why should I have to pay for coverage that I don't need?

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But like I said before, if one has full coverage, thats it!
2. Whatever happens thats covered!
3. But now read the fine print.
4. Says right there, no flood.
5. Then its not full coverage!
6. Its partial coverage!
7. This is an OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!!
8. Unless the call it the *Watered Down Plan*.
9. We are being sold a false bill of goods.
10. Its lying to the general public.
11. And should be illegal.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Rider]

Find us an example of "full coverage" home owner's insurance.