FEMA wants to recoup $30.3 million from Floridians

NOLA.COM ^ | 10/4/2005 | Not given

[pageonetoo]

FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was accused of mismanagement, fraud and wasting money after last year's four hurricanes, has asked more than 7,600 Floridians to return $30.3 million in emergency hurricane aid.

Most of the payments FEMA wants back are because insurance settlements were paid after the government aid was doled out. By law, FEMA cannot duplicate insurance coverage, spokesman Jim Homstad said.

In a small number of cases, FEMA wants to recoup the money because of processing errors or duplicate approval of funds, Homstad said.

The measure will affect residents in 60 counties, particularly St. Lucie and Palm Beach counties, where FEMA wants a total of $7.1 million returned.

The agency has come under fire by lawmakers and others for allegedly paying millions of dollars to residents in areas unaffected by the hurricanes who made fraudulent claims, while others were in need...

[pageonetoo]

...FEMA has refused to provide details about who received the nearly $5.3 billion in aid money paid after four hurricanes slammed the state last year.

A group of Florida newspapers have sued in federal court for access to records showing the names and addresses of people who shared in the payments so that they can investigate whether they were fair and equitable...

I thought FEMA was required to follow gumt't FOI rules?

[ElCapusto]

And I want FEMA to be relegated to the space it once occupied in Jimmie Kahtah's foolish imagination.

This peanut-brained socialist had two ideas. One was FEMA and the other was giving away the strategically located Panama Canal in order that the People's Army of China could run it and the two-bit "nation" of Panama could pay it's bills owed to Kahtah's limousine liberal socialist bankers.

[sandbar]

>>>Most of the payments FEMA wants back are because insurance settlements were paid after the government aid was doled out. By law, FEMA cannot duplicate insurance coverage, spokesman Jim Homstad said. >>>

This is the exact thing that needs to happen. Our tax dollars, or the insurance companies for that matter, are not designed for profits to be made. I personally don't understand why FEMA pays out to uninsured people for home rebuilding. Hell, you don't buy insurance, you lose. Period. That's my take on it.

[pageonetoo]

I personally don't understand why FEMA pays out to uninsured people for home rebuilding.

It is called "buying votes". You can always spend more money, if it isn't yours.

What I am curious about, is that the gum't is gong to repay the Red Cross for the money it spends. Does that mean the donations will be returned (hahahahahahahahaha). No, it means the head of the ARC gets another $100k bonus, and more ball gowns...

I want to know where every dime goes... a lot of those dimes are mine!

[Rodney King]

This is the exact thing that needs to happen. Our tax dollars, or the insurance companies for that matter, are not designed for profits to be made.

The problem then is that even less people will have insurance if having insurance means you don't get federal aid.

[pageonetoo]

Our tax dollars, or the insurance companies for that matter, are not designed for profits to be made

I disagree with your one premise here. Insurance companies are businesses. They depend on profits. They use actuarial tables to decide risk factors, and overhead, then set their rates accordingly.

the gum't, though, can just reach into your hip pocket...

[newcthem]

And knowing the efficiency of the Federal Government, I would expect that it will only cost about 60.6 million to recoup the 30.3 million.
FEMA.......just another of Jimmy's wet dreams.

[Pessimist]

"I personally don't understand why FEMA pays out to uninsured people for home rebuilding."

After any disaster the gvt want to get on the airwaves ASAP and boast about how much $ they're going to spend. Its FEMA's job to hand out our money. Think they care about whether its warranted?

This is just standard big gvt in action.

[MissNomer]

Very true. Insurance is a business, not a public charity. But I think the poster meant that insurance is not designed for *policyholders* to make a profit when they file a claim.

I'm not sure how I feel about that myself. You could always overinsure, and make a "profit" that way in the event of a loss. After all, you did pay the premium. However, as an investment vehicle, it's a pretty poor choice . . . unless you can arrange for a foolproof "accident"!

[Pookee]

Most of the payments FEMA wants back are because insurance settlements were paid after the government aid was doled out. By law, FEMA cannot duplicate insurance coverage, spokesman Jim Homstad said.

Let me think this through - I spend thousands of dollars each year on insurance. If I get hit with a hurricane I get nothing and the slackers score. Our government's punishment for achievement and responsibility is unabashed. Guess I'll cancel my policies and go wait on the curb for FEMA.

[pageonetoo]

You could always overinsure, and make a "profit" that way in the event of a loss.

That is probably illegal. If you look at most policies, there are clauses about duplicate coverage, and coordination of benefits. It would be fraud to double dip. that is why they are asking for the money back.

But, the comment about costing twice as much for collection is so very true, unfortunately.

I would be content to see a listing of every check written. I would loved to see what my neighbors got...

[MissNomer]

Actually, I hadn't thought about "double-dipping." I was really thinking about insuring something for more than its value. That would probably be hard to do, though, since appraisals are required.

I need to stop thinking about this!

[pageonetoo]

Guess I'll cancel my policies and go wait on the curb for FEMA.

Many people did...

I built a new place near the ocean, in NC, about 3 yrs ago. I bought a piece of land with a high bluff, on the river, emptying into the Atlantic. It takes 25 minutes by boat, to be fishing in salt water. I put up storm shutters, that are steel, and roll down to cover the openings. I lost three shingles in the storm that just hit!

My new home is being built into the side of a mountain. Pre-stresses concrete beams form the roof, and is covered by 3-4 feet of dirt, on top of a seal layer. The south-facing front, is almost all glass, and again, has steel roll-downs, as part of the design, and planning. Better bring some help, if you want to break in...

[sandbar]

>>>The problem then is that even less people will have insurance if having insurance means you don't get federal aid.>>>

That's my point. I don't think the feds should bail you out because you didn't feel like paying for insurance. Of course this would only apply in a natural disaster, they would be SOL in your regular everyday housefire.

Either way, if I didn't feel like making the sacrifice to purchase comprehensive on my car, and a hurricane blows it across town, should the feds pay for my car. Hell no! Same concept here with homes.

[sandbar]

>>>I disagree with your one premise here. Insurance companies are businesses. They depend on profits. They use actuarial tables to decide risk factors, and overhead, then set their rates accordingly. >>>

You misunderstood my post. My meaning is that it is not for the federal government OR the insurance companies to make sure an INDIVIDUAL makes a profit off a loss. The system is not designed for that.

[pageonetoo]

That's my point. I don't think the feds should bail you out because you didn't feel like paying for insurance. Of course this would only apply in a natural disaster, they would be SOL in your regular everyday housefire.

Why is the person in a hurricane worse off than a person who loses their home to fire?

It is not gum't's role to do anything to help these people. It is their own responsibilty, along with the help of their neighbors, and families. Insurance is available to mitigate personal losses. Any lack of individual planning, and personal responsiblity, show only that they are dependent. The church has a direct obligation to assist those in need.

The fedrool gum't has NO role in local losses. If people want to build on a sandy beach, they will have a sandy foundation. The same applies to people living below flood level. That says it all...

[B4Ranch]

"unless you can arrange for a foolproof "accident"!"

My wife has many schemes in full operation about that tact. Unfortunately they all involve my lifespan and something she calls 'marital term limits'.

[sandbar]

>>>That's my point. I don't think the feds should bail you out because you didn't feel like paying for insurance. Of course this would only apply in a natural disaster, they would be SOL in your regular everyday housefire.


Why is the person in a hurricane worse off than a person who loses their home to fire?>>>

What I meant is that none of it (Fed money) applies if not in a natural disaster. So it is irrelevant. Not that I thought they deserved anything either way. Which I don't think that at all. I don't think the folks in NO should have any benefits as I'm sure the whole area is in a flood plain and should have purchased flood insurance.

[pageonetoo]

What I meant is that none of it (Fed money) applies if not in a natural disaster. So it is irrelevant.

You are missing MY point, or I am not stating it properly.

My premise is the the Fedrool Gum't is not a responsible party for a natural disaster. The local government is supposed to plan for all contingencies. In Louisiana, they had a plan, but the graft and greed was more important to them. The politicians could care less about the people, as long as there is a "golden parachute' available, like the Congressional retirement scam... Show up, and become a millionaire...

[WasDougsLamb]

More waste by FEMA of our taxdollars.

http://www.wdsu.com/news/5090957/detail.html