The Government Sticks It To Katrina Survivers-Again

I think it is terrible the way the Katrina victims have been treated and are still being treated. It started in ignoring the fact that the levee was definitely going to break....and then it went on with the horrors of putting the victims up in the Superdome. And then if that wasn't bad enough...putting them in trailer that are toxic....making them sick. Just horrible.

Why do other countries have better levee systems than we do? With all the money we send abroad why can't we make our country safer?

True Cheryl..in fact there was a study done under both bushs and Clinton that said that the levy couldnt withstand the pressure of anything over a Cat 3 hurricane...guess they were operating on a hope and a prayer.

Danielle good question.

This is unbelievable. The insurance lobbyists win again.

You know it Bob.

In defense of the Supreme Court, Lori, these people are charged with protecting and preserving the Constitution of the United States, NOT listening to the matters left for lower courts, like civil litigious proceedings.

They are absolutely right in their decision.

The matter of insurance companies ducking their responsibilities is another story.

Of course they're going to try not to pay the claims, and they may win. But, this is not a matter for the highest court in our land to decide.

Chandra while that is true they are also charged with jobs like this. They are supposed to be the end all of court decisions. They step in and negotiate when lower courts cannot come to terms.

that's terrible!

The supreme court essentially has 2 functions to establish that the constitution is being upheld and to provide that lesser courts are abiding by federal laws. And since from what I understand the lower courts couldnt come to an agreement on this the parties asked the supreme court to step in...which is one of their functions.

hey Julie!!!!

Lori - you are right, in part, but this was a civil action and those decisions are left to the lower courts.

What the Supreme Court did was correct. They would not be party to the lower courts' abdication of responsibility.

Don't get me wrong, I think that insurance companies - those "lying piece of shit bastids" as Helen Hunt said in "As Good As It Gets", don't deserve any slack here.

I'm just saying the Supreme Court has not business getting involved, and I salute their stance.

chandra and again I am going to disagree with you...the reason the supreme court got involved is because they have to designate who is responsible for the levy break...whether it be the government or the insurance companies...so this goes beyond the scope of civil law...this is against the federal government since it was the army corp of engineers that originally built the levies and the federal government that was to maintian them and keep the people from the disaster that did happen.

These people have gotten no satisfaction from the government so therefore they turn to insurance their insurance companies..supposedly another safeguard...and they are dropping the ball.

That's ridiculous. A flood is a flood ... and the insurance companies should be ashamed of themselves. This is the sme kind of crap that wen down after the wildfires in CA. The insurance companies changed their policies to state that there would be no required payout if the damage within a subdivision was more than $5 million, regardless of cause. So, now people are paying the same premium for less coverage in a place that seems to burn on a regular basis. Plus, they have to maintain insurance to keep their mortgages in good standing. Insurance company executives are just slimy, greedy pigs. And where was the insurance commissioner when this went down? And why hasn't anyone called him on it?

The Supreme Court refuses to hear many cases. Thousands of cases are filed with the Supreme Court each year and only about a hundred get heard each year. Usually they hear cases that raise important constitutional questions or cases where lower courts render inconsistent opinions on an important issue.

Seriously, they're out to GET the Katrina survivors.

Now the insurance companies are a different matter. I hate them.

"In the Supreme Courts defense I am sure they have better things to do like approve the laws designating National Peeps Day and making sure that the Federal Government can illegally spy on its own people."

Too bad we have people who live here and sympathize with an enemy who would kill our own people given a chance to do so.

Why even waste the money to insure if all you get is a run around every time there are claims against the insurance....oh, yeah, if your making payments the financial institutions require you to carry all the insurance you need for your area..

I think this s.................t!!!!

Great article Lori!!!

they are out to get the whole city of New Orleans....

come on after the War of 1812 ended the best victory for the US was 3 months after a treaty was signed...wow, wow...don't let that conspiracy out///hehehe.....

Our government continues to disgust me. Here is yet one more example of the descent our morals are taking.

Lera I have no problem with the government wiretapping the enemy but when I hear that they have a church group down in Florida under survalience and are wiretapping them for no good reason other than one of the husbands of the women in the group was a contractor in Iraq and got calls from there so the government decides that all of these christians are the enemy.

Come on!

C A is absolutely right. The Supreme Court should not hear the case at all. If it did it would find for the defendant. The suit claimed the flood came Before the Hurricane damagee. Pure Bull. The hurricane Caused the levies to break.

I am tired of the whineing from New Orleans. They need to get over it and quit trying to milk Katrina for every cent.

BIG SURPRISE.

it's easy to hate the insurance companies for not giving money to people who built or bought their homes in a hole by the sea. now I guess we can also blame the supreme court for doing its job and staying out of it too. if this has been a known problem for so long why shouldn't we blame the people who put themselves there?

Maybe they have a case and maybe they don't.

I suspect that the insurance wasn't specifically FLOOD insurance, it was basic insurance which has specific liabilites.

I heard the weakness of the levee system was well documented years before the hurricane even arrived. If you live in a flood zone there's specific insurance you can buy from the govenment.

Insurance companies paid out a whole lot of money to a lot of people. About 10,000 people got free trailers to live in at a cost to the taxpayer of $80,000 each. Now some are sueing the government because the trailers might have 'harmful vapors' due to construction. There are millions of trailers and I haven't seen anyone who actually purchased one sue for damages due to 'harmful vapors'. It seems to me a whole lot of folks are just ungrateful.

If your house burns down the government doesn't step in and buy you a new one. The people who suffered under Katrina have recieved aid, probably misplaced, misdirected, at that, but it's been two years and enough is enough. I heard somewhere that the taxpayer has footed about $20,000 each for every man, woman, and child down there. Most of the residents have left the more dangerous areas for good, and good for them because it's not the only hurricane that's going to hit the gulf. In 50 years most of the gulf coast is going to be under water anyway. Why build more houses?

Hmmm... I read the comments which made me think some more. From what I understand, some insurance companies paid and some didn't, and it seemed like there were certain types of people who weren't covered when they approached their insurance companies.

I guess part of the reasoning of the people affected is that they survived a long time there, and they had no expectation that one day the levees would actually break... and that if they rebuild, it will be several generations until they break again?

David-you can't see me but I AM cheering for your post, and I agree with it. A regular home insuracne policy does not cover flood, period, not if it comes from anywhere outside the home. This includes a city water main breaking OR a levee breaking. In my opinion, people who lived so close to any large body of water, leveed or not, should have place flood insurance on their homes. while the flood, etc...was terrible and a lot of people were harmed, I fail to see how it is the insurance industries part; if policy holders actually read their policies, they would know that floods ar NOT covered.

Masked hero then by your definition anyone living where the possiblitiy of a natural disaster occuring should just buck up.

Florida=Hurricanes so cant live there
Iowa=Tornados cant live there
California earthquakes so cant live there
Minnesota tornados cant live there
All the Atlantic states hurricanes and tornados so cant live there
All Midwest states tornados so cant live there.

Maybe we could all just go to the one place on earth that isnt at risk of tornados or hurricanes or tropical storms or ice and snow or volcanos or earthquakes..maybe anartica.

David and had the levies not broke the whole city wouldnt have gotten flooded. So it was part mother nature and part man made disaster.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

The insurance companies have the Bush Administration in their pockets and Bush has the Supreme Court in his pocket.

Lera: How exactly is it sympathizing with terrorists to say that the government must obtain a warrant through a secret court and probably cause before they can wire tap American citizens? It worked just fine before Mr. Bush.

"Masked hero then by your definition anyone living where the possiblitiy of a natural disaster occuring should just buck up."

there's a difference between building a home on a sandy hurricane prone beach, or in a hole known for years to be in danger of flooding or building somewhere else and being safer. yes, they need to buck up. build on a california earthquake line then don't come crying or get insurance for it. seems to simple to me! live safe or get insurance. its a no brainer.

You can then easily say the same to indivudals who build their Million Dollar homes in areas that are prone to fire and want the government to pay for the rebuilds once the fire storms whip on by and destroy their homes.

The only claims paid were the ones that had no flood damage if I read this right,except for the ones that had flood insurance?Then I guess if you live where there there was a flood in the last 100 years you need to buy flood insurance to cover you in case a flood would happen.A little known fact that you may not know.If a windstorm blows off the roof of your house and the rain floods it the insurance company will not pay saying that its flood damage,so how do you know what your homeowers insurance will pay?
You better ask before you need it or you may not be covered.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least five votes and over 8.0 average rating, and as such has been removed from Rating Resurrectionists! Congratulations!

The rain came into my house and my normal insurance paid for the damage.

The reason we have insurance is to protect against catastrophes. Unfortunately, the insurance companies hold all of the cards and usually figure out a way of getting out of payment. I believe that insurance companies are the best that organized crime has to offer.

Absolutely Joe , absolutely.

This is sad. Katrine victims will always be victims if stuff like this keep happening. They need to be able to move on and rebuild their lives with no interferenece. Insurance companies are a big scam to put money from our pockets into theirs. As they rarely pay out in cases like this.......No cool at all when we are force to carry insurance.