Should the government pay to rebuild peoples houses in the midwest who did not have flood insurance?

Question

"Communities protected by the 52-mile Sny levee, along the Mississippi River near Quincy, Ill., worked hard to persuade FEMA in 2004 to accredit the levee..."

This is a complicated issue. Levees were certified and people were told they no longer needed flood insurance. On the other hand some communities worked hard not to have flood insurance and now the taxpayer is expected to foot the bill :(

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080619/D91DDG5O2.html

Answer 1

We are fast becoming a socialist Govt.  If one lived on or near the Miss than they know they should have flood insurance.  Although I will be happy to help them it is not up to us to pay for their shortcomings in knowledge.

Answer 2

The fact that one is not in a designated Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain) is not a guarantee that you will not experience a flood.  Communities do not "work hard not to have flood insurance."  They do work hard on improving flood protection, but mother nature can always trump anything man does.

Answer 3

That's not how it works.  You have to work hard to be ELIGIBLE for flood insurance.   Those communities worked very hard, to get LOWER RATES for flood insurance.

I don't think the government should be rebuilding.  Flood insurance IS available, even if you're not in a high risk flood plain.  Decent agents are going to offer it, even if the mortgage company doesn't require it.

The bottom line is (and you'd know this if you read questions here for a while), quite a few people resent having to buy ANY kind of insurance, and won't do it, unless they are forced into it.  Then the claim happens, and then they squawk that they didn't have insurance, so the insurance companies are mean and rotten to not pay for something they didn't buy.

As if you could go to a convenience store, and demand a carton of cigarettes you didn't buy.  Same thing, larger scale.