FEMA Aid and Politics

[DBOldford]

When Hurricane Ivan hit South Walton beaches, two months prior to the Year 2000 election, we had water damage on our ground floor. We paid for the cleanup effort and replaced carpet with stone tile to avoid future problems. We paid with a credit card. Before our charge statement even came in, we had a check from FEMA in the full amount of our claim (minus the $500 deductible). We could scarcely believe it, based on the many stories of bureaucratic hurdles that have historically plagued FEMA. We also heard many stories of people who received FEMA checks far beyond the actual damage to their homes. Of course, we live in another state and had the advantage of dry records, computers and telephones and fax machines, all necessary for filing the claim. (Not to mention a lot of patience and determination.)

It will be interesting to see how FEMA performs for the people of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. If there is any fairness in the process at all, these people will receive at least the same prompt assistance that we did.

 

[SlowMovin]

We also heard many stories of people who received FEMA checks far beyond the actual damage to their homes.

I personally do NOT consider that a good thing. Sounds more like a case of mismanagement. If an insurance company paid off more than the policy amount, someone would get fired over it.

I don't know how much of it is true, but I also heard reports of FEMA checks that went to people who were fully insured and of payments made to people who had no storm-related damages at all.

I'm really kind of confused about FEMA. What exactly are they supposed to do? Why do they pay anything? Isn't that what insurance companies are for?

On Edit: I did not mean for my reply to sound argumentative. I really do not understand this. Are they supposed supplement insurance? Why are they handing out checks to people?

 

[SlowMovin]

Here's what the FEMA website says they do...

Advising on building codes and flood plain management...teaching people how to get through a disaster...helping equip local and state emergency preparedness...coordinating the federal response to a disaster...making disaster assistance available to states, communities, businesses and individuals...training emergency managers...supporting the nation's fire service...administering the national flood and crime insurance programs...

So they do administer flood insurance (I actually knew that, but had forgotten) so I can understand them cutting checks for flood claims. But they seemed to be handing out a lot more money to people than flood insurance claims would explain. I could understand it if they were giving disaster assistance directly to the state and local government entities which are responsible for rebuilding infrastructure (although nowhere in the Constitution does it say the federal governments purpose is to help states rebuild after a disaster...but try getting people nowadays to understand that one :roll: ) but I don't get why they were giving away tax money.

 

[DBOldford]

Flood insurance is only offered through FEMA, a Federal agency that sets floodplain and floodway areas after each significant storm event. Mortgage companies require flood insurance in such areas, in addition to one's other insurance coverage. In FL, there are separate policies for fire, wind damage (hurricane), and flood. The FEMA policy is a $500 deductible and the hurricane policy is a $10,000 deductible and they are separate claims. If a person has multiple insurance claims that begin to approach the value of the property, FEMA can elect to not pay and they purchase the property. (This usually occurs only in the case of mobile home parks and other lower value properties.) Only FEMA offers flood insurance, to my knowledge. A homeowner with property located within a floodplain (practically anyone near the water) needs insurance for water damage. I guess many who own their homes with no mortage lender requiring flood insurance decided to forego that expense. Consequently, they will receive no compensation for their losses. But a homeowner pays a flood insurance policy through FEMA in the same way we pay for other policies through insurance companies. It's not a taxpayer bailout for these folks.

 

[Teresa]

just fyi: FEMA info

"... As it has for more than 20 years, FEMA's mission remains: to lead America to prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from disasters with a vision of "A Nation Prepared." "

History of FEMA

 

[Paula]

Before our charge statement even came in, we had a check from FEMA in the full amount of our claim (minus the $500 deductible). We could scarcely believe it, based on the many stories of bureaucratic hurdles that have historically plagued FEMA. We also heard many stories of people who received FEMA checks far beyond the actual damage to their homes. QUOTE]

I think it's great that FEMA came through for you and I like hearing stories about when FEMA came through for people given that they are getting so much criticism now. As for people taking more money for repairs than they had paid after a hurricane, then I think the people who take it are as much at fault as FEMA. When FEMA is overwhelmed trying to take care of people and claims, I assume they can't follow-up in detail with everyone (or they would not get claims settled as quickly as needed) and to some extent they have to trust people to not take advantage of the situation. FEMA, of course, knows that some people will take advantage of the situation, but they may let that go because they have to focus on taking care of people who are in need quickly and hope that the majority will not take advantage of the situation. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what FEMA would do if someone tried to give some of an overpayment back! I wonder if the federal bureaucracy would enable that to happen without it causing problems for people who try to do that.

 

[DBOldford]

I agree completely. Funny story...our town received a grant from the State Highway Dept. for $3 million to build an alternative to a 150-yr. old stone bridge, then dedicate the stone bridge for pedestrians' and bicyclists' use exclusively. The Town decided a new bridge would be an eyesore from the stone bridge, so not to build it. When we tried to give the money back, the State had absolutely no idea how to even initiate such an action. Never had happened in the history of the State. The planner's staff report was hilarious.

 

[Rita]

I agree completely. Funny story...our town received a grant from the State Highway Dept. for $3 million to build an alternative to a 150-yr. old stone bridge, then dedicate the stone bridge for pedestrians' and bicyclists' use exclusively. The Town decided a new bridge would be an eyesore from the stone bridge, so not to build it. When we tried to give the money back, the State had absolutely no idea how to even initiate such an action. Never had happened in the history of the State. The planner's staff report was hilarious.

:roll: :clap_1: :shock: :nono1: Not sure what emoticon fits this story

 

[SlowMovin]

...a homeowner pays a flood insurance policy through FEMA in the same way we pay for other policies through insurance companies. It's not a taxpayer bailout for these folks.

I agree with that (although I question what authority the Feds have to go into the insurance business in the first place and might argue that their providing taxpayer funding to underwrite risks that the private sector refuses to cover actually is a type of bailout...but that's a different discussion so let's not get off track here).

What I keep hearing is that FEMA is paying for generators, chainsaws, roof repairs (i.e. wind damage, not flood), funerals (including some for people who died before the storm ever got here), etc. That's the part I don't understand. Now I know that it makes people happy when someone does something for victims of a natural disaster. But the Federal Government is supposed to be limited in scope to responsibilities specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Granted, we got off that track decades ago, and few people today even understand it. But even the most devout believers in big government, I believe, would acknowledge that it makes little sense for FEMA--outside of the flood insurance program--to be giving cash to people based on whether their particular disaster (home destroyed) took place within the confines of a declared federal disaster area.

 

[DBOldford]

I don't think you understand the insurance component vs. the disaster relief role of FEMA. The FEMA nsurance program works the same way it would if one purchased it through a private sector company (except that the private sector does not provide it). Private insurors pay claims out of the pool of funds paid by all their insured, in hopes that there will always be more people without claims than with them. So in a sense, the disaster-free person is underwriting the claims for those struck by disaster.

FEMA steps in as disaster relief in events such as major floods and hurricanes because the devastation is so great and because critical needs cannot necessarily wait for insurance companies to accept claims and settle them. If not for FEMA (and I am the first to say that they failed to perform in a timely manner in the aftermath of Katrina), there would be no help for those devastated by the hurricane and flood. Although private donations are very helpful, they are generally only a fraction of what is needed for recovery and they also are not enduring. The needs of these areas will continue for years. The relief aid from the private sector won't just keep coming. It never does.

One isn't necessarily a believer in "big government" to acknowledge that our country has to provide some form of relief for natural disaster or even for those whose lives are barely sustainable at the poverty level. Ours is an economy that is dependent upon at least a 5% national unemployment level and that would seem to translate into some kind of recognition of need for those left behind, in both a literal and figurative way.