EXCELLENT op/ed by David Cay Johnson outlines the (surprise) stunning hypocrisy of Southern GOP politicians who suffered property damage from Katrina and other natural disasters.
Bottom line: Flood insurance is a 'public option' and requiring coverage in a flood plain is an 'insurance mandate' and some (I'm looking at YOU, Trent Lott) were all for RETROACTIVE coverage to cover for a lack of personal responsibility (pre-exisitng condition, anyone?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-cay-johnston/gop-favors-public-option_b_296703.html Atop the front page of the New York Times today is a color photo of Georgia homes flooded up to their rafters, an image that illustrates how when it comes to insurance our Congress applies two standards, separate and unequal, one for property and a lesser one for people.
Unlike people without health insurance, homeowners have access to public option flood insurance.
Even those who fail to take personal responsibility to buy insurance to protect their property can get benefits, thanks in good part to politicians who are leading opponents of public option healthcare.
Consider the example of Trent Lott of Mississippi, who was that state's senior senator when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, flooding his home looking out on the Gulf. Lott had not exercised personal responsibility by taking out flood insurance even though it was available from the federal government at low cost. He did have private insurance, but his insurer refused to pay much of the claim, saying it was not wind damage (which was covered by the policy), but water damage (which was excluded).
Weeks later Lott introduced Senate Bill 1936, which would have authorized retroactive flood insurance. The idea came from Representative Gene Taylor, a Democrat who represented the Mississippi Gulf Coast, which should remind us that when there is voter demand for reform, and campaign contributions are not the driving force, the parties have worked together.
Lott's bill would have let flood victims pay 10 years of flood insurance premiums after-the-fact plus a 5 percent late payment penalty. Since this storm was rated a once in 500 years occurrence, even 10 years of premiums would not come close to covering the real costs, meaning a taxpayer subsidy was built into the Lott bill.
Instead of being laughed at by his fellow Republicans for promoting socialism, the concept of retroactive relief was warmly embraced, although not the idea for retroactive insurance. Instead the government went with handouts.
<snip>
Much more hypocrisy at the link: rejection of SCHIP funding by these same politicos.
The public flood insurance analogy works on every level, even the proposed retroactivity by Lott: it's a public option, it encourages better choices (don't build in a flood plain), it socializes risk, it covers 'pre-existing' conditions, it could even be sold by private insurers if they wished.
It's a long piece, but I recommend it highly. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
