• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Flood insurance bill snag: Abortion

This, I think, is the real long-term consequence. But, it's often effective in the short-term, and the voting public has short memories and short attention spans.

The other side to that problem...if a republican does it he only piss's off the democrat public...if the democrat does he piss's off the republican public...rand paul especially annoys me..I think hes outright nuts.
 
I guess some folks can be pretty ill informed about flood plains. In many instances the flood plain has moved to the homeowner. Suburban sprawl has created flooding where a decade ago such things were unheard of. While visiting the Philly area homes that are 150 years old flooded during summer rains. Mall parking lots and paved roads in ever increasing developments cover more and more of the absorbent ground and punch runoff into the local streams and flooding.

To use the 'shouldn't build there' so-called logic much of this nation needs to be abandoned, earthquake zones, tornado ally- which is expanding, wild fire zones...

kind of silly...
 
A true statement only if you think that every abortion removed a viable foetus from a woman. Only true if none of the women would have died without the abortion. Only true if you think a blastocyst is a human being. Only true if in every instance, a foetus had been formed without defect and in the womb and not in the fallopian tubes.

That is merely your opinion.Saying something is true does not make it so.A baby in the womb is still a baby regardless of how many weeks he or she has been in the womb.
 
I guess some folks can be pretty ill informed about flood plains. In many instances the flood plain has moved to the homeowner. Suburban sprawl has created flooding where a decade ago such things were unheard of. While visiting the Philly area homes that are 150 years old flooded during summer rains. Mall parking lots and paved roads in ever increasing developments cover more and more of the absorbent ground and punch runoff into the local streams and flooding.

To use the 'shouldn't build there' so-called logic much of this nation needs to be abandoned, earthquake zones, tornado ally- which is expanding, wild fire zones...

kind of silly...

I do not think people in this nation ever used that logic.What irks me even more is the fact that year after year it seems the same natural disaster happens, but these people keep building things the same damn way. There is no reason why any building in Florida and any other hurricane magnet should be built out of wood,especially with all the disaster aid those people get every time a hurricane hits those places.
 
That is merely your opinion.Saying something is true does not make it so.A baby in the womb is still a baby regardless of how many weeks he or she has been in the womb.

The statement in red cancels out the statement in blue. :2wave:
 
I do not think people in this nation ever used that logic.What irks me even more is the fact that year after year it seems the same natural disaster happens, but these people keep building things the same damn way. There is no reason why any building in Florida and any other hurricane magnet should be built out of wood,especially with all the disaster aid those people get every time a hurricane hits those places.

If there were no disaster aid, it would be much less likely that a house would be built out of wood in a hurricane zone, or in tornado alley, or in the middle of dry brush. The mentality seems to be that, should the house be destroyed, then the federal government will step in and pay to have it rebuilt.
 
Saw the A-word in the thread title, knew the thread was going places.

And yeah, I definitely agree that unrelated amendments should not be allowed on a bill. Want to add an exception, exemption, or adjustment to something flood-related? Define what technically qualifies as a flood? Sure, whatever, bills need to be amended sometimes. But no, you can't freaking bring abortion into a flood insurance bill. I hate congress so much sometimes.

Wait. Most of the time.
 
Last edited:
I could care less what Rand Paul thinks about me, as he is a dishonest, conspiracy theorist opportunist.

Amazing. I am sure he thinks the exact same thing about you. Interesting how things work that way.

To his credit, he will have a life time retirement at your expense. Looks like he's got one up on you.
 
its things like this that prove to me what an ass this, "Rand" Paul is.

I knew he would be an ass in the Senate, and my predictions have come true.
 
If there were no disaster aid, it would be much less likely that a house would be built out of wood in a hurricane zone, or in tornado alley, or in the middle of dry brush. The mentality seems to be that, should the house be destroyed, then the federal government will step in and pay to have it rebuilt.

I agree but ironically know who benefits the most from the govt with hurricane and dmg...THE RICH...who own million dollar and multimillion dollar mansions and estates on the water and who have huge damage periodically that costs more to repair than to build 10 average florida homes...and its rebuilt over and over when they live near the water..if not hurricane dmg...tropical storm damage, or flood surge damage but costly incredibly expensive dmg none the less that everyone pays for.
Anyone living in a danger zone say one mile or less from the beach or water in the gulf...should be told you buy that house your insurance will pay for it once...after that your on your own
 
Don't know how it is in other corners of the Republic but my little bit of heaven requires you to buy flood plain insurance if you want to build a new house anywhere close to a designated flood plain zone. The bank required us to have it. It isn't disaster relief after, but a kitty you pay into before and not matter if you ever get flooded.

Now wood houses in a hurricane zone isn't the issue, it is improperly built ones. My parents ran a real estate appraisal business in Florida for a few years. They did inspections after one of Florida's hurricanes. What they found and reported got them in hot water with builders and bankers but it was the insurance companies who were paying the bills. Hurricane straps not present, whole rows of nails missing the rafters, plywood stiffeners missing in required by code positions...

During that housing bubble over a decade ago the construction workers were not the noble, well trained workers, with long work histories some attempt to portray them to be, but guys willing to get broiled in the Florida sun and run a nailer. This was pre-invasion days, mostly 'natives' from up north.

But back to topic of flood insurance and wooden buildings in areas where an 'act of Gawd' can ruin the home of your dreams. If you eliminate wooden buildings in all those places the building industry would be halted, new homes would cost 25% more and with each new tornado in Ohio or Chicago will carve out huge swaths of no new wood houses regions.

Flood plain insurance makes sense, private sector companies have a piss poor record of paying in the event of natural disasters. Trent lott was as amazed as anyone else when he discovered his private sector insurance was denying his claim because it wasn't the hurricane, for which he had insurance but the torrential rains it spawned and thus according to the courts, FLOODS that destroyed his house, that insurance he lacked! :roll:

Houses, like fools, can not be 'proofed', they can at best be made resistant... flood, tornado, fire resistant, not proof.
 
Flood plain insurance makes sense, private sector companies have a piss poor record of paying in the event of natural disasters. Trent lott was as amazed as anyone else when he discovered his private sector insurance was denying his claim because it wasn't the hurricane, for which he had insurance but the torrential rains it spawned and thus according to the courts, FLOODS that destroyed his house, that insurance he lacked! :roll:
This is a sore spot about the whole insurance/flood thing that has never made sense to me.
 
This is a sore spot about the whole insurance/flood thing that has never made sense to me.


Regular home insurance and Hurricane riders have never covered other natural flooding. You've always had to have separate flood insurance usually govt backed. Its another way for an insurance company to keep everyones premiums and pay the least amount of claims it can.
Insurance companies like all other corporations have gone greed mad. They make huge profits in the gulf region...yet they keep reducing their coverages and raising their premiums. When I moved to fla 8 yrs ago...I was paying huricane insurance at one level...I have never had any claim at all for anything home related...my Hurricane premium has doubled and they dropped my Sink Hole insurance and if I want my sink hole coverage back instead of being included its an additional 475.00.
Thank you Gov Rick Scott as soon as he got in office his people approved huge rate hikes that Jeb Bush would not.
 
The private sectors failure in the double hurricane year that claimed Trent Lott's home along with so many others is why the Feds stepped in, no bank was going to loan in the vast areas of tornado,hurricane, flood, wildfire areas without RELIABLE insurance. Quite a few insurance companies pulled out of the hurricane zone, my provider, State Farm had a shameful track record in Florida.

Ike, Katrina, Galveston, Homestead across the hurricane zone private sector failed it's customers. Lawsuits latter partially restored some claims, but for some of us it shook our faith in companies looking out for their customers, smiling ads to the contrary.
 
Back
Top Bottom