Help
Office in Atlantic City opened at noon today for the first time since the hurricane hit. I was in a little earlier. Many experienced problems getting into Atlantic City, but there were no problems or delays on the route that I took into the city (except for a short lane closure on the causeway where an electric crew was working on the lines). I heard that there was at least one checkpoint at which anyone heading to Atlantic City was screened - providing a business card with an Atlantic City address was good enough to allow you to pass.
While I have not seen too much of the damage in the city, I do know that all of the traffic lights on Atlantic Avenue are still out. The casinos just reopened after being closed since Sunday afternoon. That is the longest closure since casino gambling began in Atlantic City 35 years ago. There are emergency crews out and about, and there appears to be some emergency activity at the intersection of North Carolina Avenue and Arctic Avenue (one block from my office).
The bottom line is that Atlantic City is now open for business again.
Yesterday, my girlfriend met with some friends of ours from Manahawkin - about 30 miles north of Atlantic City. They have bigger problems. They gave us some personal items to hold for them while they clean up from the storm. The storm related damage along the South Jersey Coast is significant, but it is dwarfed in comparison to the damage to the North.
Hurricane Sandy
#41
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2012-November-02, 11:28
#42
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 770
- Joined: 2011-September-23
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bellevue, WA
Posted 2012-November-02, 11:29
Asking someone to source a claim they have made on a forum is not considered rude. Demanding others provide the proof of your own claims is.
That said, the proof provided is interesting. Certainty the government does more for individuals then I thought it did for areas declared a disaster.
That said, it seems most of the aid is in the form of temporary assistance and low cost loans.
This quote struck especially relating to your concerns.
http://en.wikipedia....surance_Program
Combining a flood insurance plan of last resort while at the same time requiring the community to create flood mitigation plans.
Apparently it is meant to be self supporting through premiums. Though it is a net lose currently.
It would appear that the NFIP is a mechanisms designed to prevent the moral hazard that concerns you and I still have strong doubts that expensive completely uninsured shore houses are the ones getting the few grants the government does hand out.
That said, the proof provided is interesting. Certainty the government does more for individuals then I thought it did for areas declared a disaster.
That said, it seems most of the aid is in the form of temporary assistance and low cost loans.
This quote struck especially relating to your concerns.
Quote
The damaged home where you live is located in a designated flood hazard area and your community is not participating in the National Flood Insurance Program. In this case, the flood damage to your home would not be covered, but you may qualify for rental assistance or items not covered by flood insurance, such as water wells, septic systems.
http://en.wikipedia....surance_Program
Combining a flood insurance plan of last resort while at the same time requiring the community to create flood mitigation plans.
Apparently it is meant to be self supporting through premiums. Though it is a net lose currently.
It would appear that the NFIP is a mechanisms designed to prevent the moral hazard that concerns you and I still have strong doubts that expensive completely uninsured shore houses are the ones getting the few grants the government does hand out.
#43
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,791
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2012-November-02, 13:52
It seems to me that insurance companies cannot generally be expected to handle widespread disasters like this. The economics of insurance is pretty simple: for the company to stay in business, the income from premiums (and earnings from investing them) must be larger than the outflow due to claims. This model works well when the number of customers filing large claims is a small fraction of the customer base. But disasters don't work like this, they affect a huge portion of the customers. This explains why many insurance companies simply stop issuing certain types of policies in areas that are prone to certain disasters: either the claims will be too large, or they'll have to raise premiums to a level most customers aren't willing to pay.
This is why we expect the government to step in when disasters occur -- it doesn't have the same economic limitations that private industry has. But perhaps the way this should be done would be analogous to FDIC: insurance companies would join a federal program that allows them to apply for aid whenever a disaster occurs, so they can pay out claims to their customers. But homeowners would still be required to have insurance in the first place, they can't just freeload and expect to be bailed out when a disaster occurs.
Something that makes Sandy different, though, is that it hit many areas that don't generally consider themselves at risk from flooding. So the homeowners don't even think of buying flood insurance. Similarly, I doubt that Americans outside the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault buys earthquake insurance -- if a freak earthquake causes serious damage in the northeast, are we all out of luck?
This is why we expect the government to step in when disasters occur -- it doesn't have the same economic limitations that private industry has. But perhaps the way this should be done would be analogous to FDIC: insurance companies would join a federal program that allows them to apply for aid whenever a disaster occurs, so they can pay out claims to their customers. But homeowners would still be required to have insurance in the first place, they can't just freeload and expect to be bailed out when a disaster occurs.
Something that makes Sandy different, though, is that it hit many areas that don't generally consider themselves at risk from flooding. So the homeowners don't even think of buying flood insurance. Similarly, I doubt that Americans outside the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault buys earthquake insurance -- if a freak earthquake causes serious damage in the northeast, are we all out of luck?
#44
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 382
- Joined: 2010-December-30
- Gender:Male
-
Interests:All types of games especially bridge & war games.
old bidding systems & computer simulation programming.
Posted 2012-November-02, 21:42
barmar, on 2012-November-02, 13:52, said:
It seems to me that insurance companies cannot generally be expected to handle widespread disasters like this. The economics of insurance is pretty simple: for the company to stay in business, the income from premiums (and earnings from investing them) must be larger than the outflow due to claims. This model works well when the number of customers filing large claims is a small fraction of the customer base. But disasters don't work like this, they affect a huge portion of the customers. This explains why many insurance companies simply stop issuing certain types of policies in areas that are prone to certain disasters: either the claims will be too large, or they'll have to raise premiums to a level most customers aren't willing to pay.
This is why we expect the government to step in when disasters occur -- it doesn't have the same economic limitations that private industry has. But perhaps the way this should be done would be analogous to FDIC: insurance companies would join a federal program that allows them to apply for aid whenever a disaster occurs, so they can pay out claims to their customers. But homeowners would still be required to have insurance in the first place, they can't just freeload and expect to be bailed out when a disaster occurs.
Something that makes Sandy different, though, is that it hit many areas that don't generally consider themselves at risk from flooding. So the homeowners don't even think of buying flood insurance. Similarly, I doubt that Americans outside the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault buys earthquake insurance -- if a freak earthquake causes serious damage in the northeast, are we all out of luck?
This is why we expect the government to step in when disasters occur -- it doesn't have the same economic limitations that private industry has. But perhaps the way this should be done would be analogous to FDIC: insurance companies would join a federal program that allows them to apply for aid whenever a disaster occurs, so they can pay out claims to their customers. But homeowners would still be required to have insurance in the first place, they can't just freeload and expect to be bailed out when a disaster occurs.
Something that makes Sandy different, though, is that it hit many areas that don't generally consider themselves at risk from flooding. So the homeowners don't even think of buying flood insurance. Similarly, I doubt that Americans outside the vicinity of the San Andreas Fault buys earthquake insurance -- if a freak earthquake causes serious damage in the northeast, are we all out of luck?
When I was active in insurance insurers met this problem with international reinsurance. Thus widening the base for premiums beyond the disaster area. Presumably they still do so.
Slainte,
Ian