Bushfires

[silicone skyline]

There's been some pretty naive statments floating about. Have a read of this chapstick:

Marty O'Neill writes: It is clear that the bushfires in Victoria have been devastating and much suffering has occurred. But, once again, I get mad about those people who live in "forest" or "bush" areas that refuse to insure their properties and then put out their hands and expect the rest of Australia to replace their houses from them.

They won't get a penny from me. I would rather donate money to the many victims of land mines across the world.

You can't tar them all with the same brush and insurance companies are hell to deal with, but I don't see a problem with that point of view.

If he feels that's where his money should go, that's fine, he's probably not alone.

I don't agree with it, but at least he has some reasoning behind it other than abortion laws.

[shoe boy]

There's been some pretty naive statments floating about. Have a read of this chapstick:

Marty O'Neill writes: It is clear that the bushfires in Victoria have been devastating and much suffering has occurred. But, once again, I get mad about those people who live in "forest" or "bush" areas that refuse to insure their properties and then put out their hands and expect the rest of Australia to replace their houses from them.

They won't get a penny from me. I would rather donate money to the many victims of land mines across the world.

You can't tar them all with the same brush and insurance companies are hell to deal with, but I don't see a problem with that point of view.

If he feels that's where his money should go, that's fine, he's probably not alone.

I don't agree with it, but at least he has some reasoning behind it other than abortion laws.

SS he makes some very good points the same as people that build in flood plains and every year get flooded then cry poor me and those that build in Tornado alley in the States and shit their house blows down? I no it is a delicate time for these calls but also very true.

PS I am only quoting on the post from Quichey about insurance.

[AFLflyer]

There's been some pretty naive statments floating about. Have a read of this chapstick:

Marty O'Neill writes: It is clear that the bushfires in Victoria have been devastating and much suffering has occurred. But, once again, I get mad about those people who live in "forest" or "bush" areas that refuse to insure their properties and then put out their hands and expect the rest of Australia to replace their houses from them.

They won't get a penny from me. I would rather donate money to the many victims of land mines across the world.

You can't tar them all with the same brush and insurance companies are hell to deal with, but I don't see a problem with that point of view.

If he feels that's where his money should go, that's fine, he's probably not alone.

I don't agree with it, but at least he has some reasoning behind it other than abortion laws.

SS he makes some very good points the same as people that build in flood plains and every year get flooded then cry poor me and those that build in Tornado alley in the States and s***t their house blows down? I no it is a delicate time for these calls but also very true.

PS I am only quoting on the post from Quichey about insurance.

Everyone should have insurance i agree, but what i dont like about this argument is how people think no one should live in the bush. It's australia, a high proportion of aussies will always live in and around native scrub. Look at the adelaide hills. Both of these arguments should take nothing away from the HELL these people have been through. people are always ready to kick people why there down, i reckon it's awesome how Australia has ralied around these people insurance or no insurance.

[silicone skyline]

I agree with that Flyer, i can just see the argument that dude made.

Whether I agree or not ....

[Q.]

Without rural townships we would be without strong agriculture and natural resource industries. It's naive to say that people shouldn't live in the 'bush'.

It's also easy to say that everyone should be insured, but it's probably not so easy for low income owners to always balance their budgets in order to be.

[silicone skyline]

Without rural townships we would be without strong agriculture and natural resource industries. It's naive to say that people shouldn't live in the 'bush'.

It's also easy to say that everyone should be insured, but it's probably not so easy for low income owners to always balance their budgets in order to be.

That's what I think summed up well enough.

That said insurance is a necessity when you own over $1 million in assets

[Footy Chick]

As someone who works in insurance, the first time I heard a story with a bloke in tears, saying his house and his 4 B&B's all burnt down. I thought you poor fella, then he said he had no insurance. The first thing that involuntary came out of my mouth was "You dickhead"

You never begrudge a person for living where they live, I've lived in the bush myself and can understand fully why people would choose that lifestyle.

What I don't understand is that why they are too friggin stingy to spend $300-$400 a year to protect a home they know is in a higher risk area.

While I still feel a helluva lot of sympathy for the fact they've lost everything, some of that disappears just for the fact they refused to part with a few hundy to protect themselves and now expect the taxpayers and rely on handouts to foot the bill.

However despite the above, I'm still happy to help them. That's the type of person I am.

[Footy Chick]

It's also easy to say that everyone should be insured, but it's probably not so easy for low income owners to always balance their budgets in order to be.

and now what have they got? No excuses.

[silicone skyline]

As someone who works in insurance, the first time I heard a story with a bloke in tears, saying his house and his 4 B&B's all burnt down. I thought you poor fella, then he said he had no insurance. The first thing that involuntary came out of my mouth was "You dickhead"

You never begrudge a person for living where they live, I've lived in the bush myself and can understand fully why people would choose that lifestyle.

What I don't understand is that why they are too friggin stingy to spend $300-$400 a year to protect a home they know is in a higher risk area.

While I still feel a helluva lot of sympathy for the fact they've lost everything, some of that disappears just for the fact they refused to part with a few hundy to protect themselves and now expect the taxpayers and rely on handouts to foot the bill.

However despite the above, I'm still happy to help them. That's the type of person I am.

Exactly. Good post.



Fisty.

[AFLflyer]

Agree - Ithink insurance should be mandatory! Atleast a basic cover should be required on any house. or is this already the case? seriously out of the 700 properties destroyed what % do you think wouldnt have been insured? what about all the money going towards getting the community up and running, native wildlife care etc!

some people make any excuse to go against the flow! they are the ones who would have been screaming the loudest if they happened to be caught up in such a tragedy!

[Footy Chick]

Speaking to someone at the RACV yesterday, they said they had 70% of the total insurance policies in that area.

I'd hate to be working there at the moment

The only compulsory insurance required by Australian Law is the COmpulsory Third Party Bodily Injury Cover, which is paid with your car registration (in SA anyway, other states may differ)

[The Ash Man]

As someone who works in insurance, the first time I heard a story with a bloke in tears, saying his house and his 4 B&B's all burnt down. I thought you poor fella, then he said he had no insurance. The first thing that involuntary came out of my mouth was "You dickhead"

You never begrudge a person for living where they live, I've lived in the bush myself and can understand fully why people would choose that lifestyle.

What I don't understand is that why they are too friggin stingy to spend $300-$400 a year to protect a home they know is in a higher risk area.

While I still feel a helluva lot of sympathy for the fact they've lost everything, some of that disappears just for the fact they refused to part with a few hundy to protect themselves and now expect the taxpayers and rely on handouts to foot the bill.

However despite the above, I'm still happy to help them. That's the type of person I am.

Heard this as well and had the same response
Does that mean he owned all properties freehold?
I thought as a condition of a mortgage you had to have insurance?

[Footy Chick]

Most (if not all) banks to require proof of insurance (or Certificate of Currency as it's known) however most fail to ask for it upon renewal each year.

I can't speak for business insurance, but with legal liability I would have thought that business insurance would have been mandatory.

[Psyber]

I have lived in bush environments for most of the last 25 years - in SA and Victoria.
In SA it was easier to live outside the city on reasonably cleared land, whereas in Victoria you have to go further out to not be in the forests if you are not in the suburbs. I can't imagine living in any such environment without full replacement cost insurance. It is costing me about $350 per year for building cover at $450K. Contents works out a bit more expensive though...

[JAS]

It's also easy to say that everyone should be insured, but it's probably not so easy for low income owners to always balance their budgets in order to be.

and now what have they got? No excuses.

Sorry Quichey can't agree...I'm a low income owner...don't mind admitting to what equates to about 1325$AU per month...and I have buildings and contents insurance...I spread the payments so it costs me about 36$AU per month. There's no excuse even if your underinsured it's better than nothing. I also get mad when I see people, especially after the floods here, expecting the government or charities to bail them out cos they were too lazy or too busy blowing the cash down the pub to get insurance.

Regards
JAS

[Mr66]

He must either have exceptionally strong faith or really huge balls.

Can see his church getting burnt down in the near future.

Lets hope so.
But that would mean that there is a sensible arsonist going around..

[Hondo]

It will be interesting to see what comes of the Royal Commission. I'd guess life in high fire risk areas will have to change:

- mandatory insurance
- mandatory evacuations (no more trying to save properties and putting lives at risk)
- community bushfire plans (not left up to individuals)
- minimum building standards (where houses are allowed to be built and what materials are used)
- getting warnings out quicker
- etc
- etc

We simply can't have 300 people die in their homes and cars as a result of fires that were burning for a week beforehand. It's tragically unbelievable We must learn from this.

My condolences to everyone affected by this disaster.

[hearts on fire]

What is the death toll up to now? i haven't had a chance to watch the news lately......

[JAS]

What is the death toll up to now? i haven't had a chance to watch the news lately......

I think it's still 181...

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 23,00.html

...what a tragic this story is...hard to believe someone would deliberatly do that to a firefighter...

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/stor ... 11,00.html

Regards
JAS

[Dutchy]

Hard to feel too sorry for anyone who is not insured, havent heard much of it, wouldnt have thought it would be very many at all

As someone said if you have debt against your property you must be insured, if you havent got debt that means you have even less of an excuse not to be insured as you have more available income....

If somehow they did have debt and didnt have insurance, well they now have debt but no house...as Fisty said...dickheads

I certainly hope that none of the donated $ is going to build houses for uninsured, I wouldnt think it would