View Poll Results: Should donated money be used for rebuilding houses of those not insured?
Yes
38
32.48%
No
59
50.43%
Don't know
20
17.09%
Voters: 117. You may not vote on this poll
Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
#76
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
Sure, good idea. So long as the insurance companies don't knock 20 grand off their payouts to their customers.
#77
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,144
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
I cant believe that people can be so callous. Its like those volunteer fire fighters lighting fires - its all so unbelievable. I know if I looked someone in the eye who had lost their house or I had seen all those poor children that even if I thought it before I would melt and just want to help everyone.
Viv
#78
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2005
Location: Mornington
Posts: 1,650
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
Who? Really? Thats so awful.
I cant believe that people can be so callous. Its like those volunteer fire fighters lighting fires - its all so unbelievable. I know if I looked someone in the eye who had lost their house or I had seen all those poor children that even if I thought it before I would melt and just want to help everyone.
Viv
I cant believe that people can be so callous. Its like those volunteer fire fighters lighting fires - its all so unbelievable. I know if I looked someone in the eye who had lost their house or I had seen all those poor children that even if I thought it before I would melt and just want to help everyone.
Viv
I wasn't fighting the fires, but I have been up there with the SES and it is awful and I voted no to rebuilding the uninsured's houses.
I am not saying for one moment that they shouldn't get as much help as possible to get them back on the road again, but not to a free house when most people decided to insure there places and for some reason a few decided not to.
I know this is a subject that not everyone will agree on but it is the way I look at it. And before any body accuses me of being a
cold hearted bastard, I hardly slept a wink last night after dealing with those affected by the fires yesterday.
John
#80
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2005
Location: Mornington
Posts: 1,650
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
Every single one of them
In all seriousness I was a bit more affected by some of the people than others.
A couple in their mid thirties, the Woman was expecting as well came to the relief centre where we were on traffic control duty. They were from St Andrews and thought they could cope on their own without help, but a week later realised that they couldn't. All he said was that he didn't know what they wanted but they just needed help and was completly confused. It was all I could do to show them where to go
#81
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
Every single one of them
In all seriousness I was a bit more affected by some of the people than others.
A couple in their mid thirties, the Woman was expecting as well came to the relief centre where we were on traffic control duty. They were from St Andrews and thought they could cope on their own without help, but a week later realised that they couldn't. All he said was that he didn't know what they wanted but they just needed help and was completly confused. It was all I could do to show them where to go
In all seriousness I was a bit more affected by some of the people than others.
A couple in their mid thirties, the Woman was expecting as well came to the relief centre where we were on traffic control duty. They were from St Andrews and thought they could cope on their own without help, but a week later realised that they couldn't. All he said was that he didn't know what they wanted but they just needed help and was completly confused. It was all I could do to show them where to go
Compared to the previous trip it was strange seeing all the people about, especially the kids walking about and playing in between the flattened houses.
#82
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
They are first and foremost human beings and have their own opinions. Being a volunteer firefighter doesn't prevent them from believing what they do. Were they really awful, they would have asked the owners of the houses they were fighting to protect if they had insurance, had the owners said no, they would have moved on to the next house. That, obviously didn't happen.
#83
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2005
Location: Mornington
Posts: 1,650
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
[QUOTE=MartinLuther;7289238]Have you been up Kinglake recently? I was there on Saturday.
No, I was at Whittlesea on Sunday, the fires still looked pretty big over the back or was that just backburning.
I may have to go up to Kinglake to retrieve our lighting trailer, if they can ever find it again as it has been moved from pillar to post apparently.
No, I was at Whittlesea on Sunday, the fires still looked pretty big over the back or was that just backburning.
I may have to go up to Kinglake to retrieve our lighting trailer, if they can ever find it again as it has been moved from pillar to post apparently.
#84
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
When we left late on Saturday there was a flare up between Kinglake West and Whittlesea. That might have been what you could see. To the east of Kinglake there were some large fires but it was hard to tell if they were back burns or not.
#85
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,144
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
They are first and foremost human beings and have their own opinions. Being a volunteer firefighter doesn't prevent them from believing what they do. Were they really awful, they would have asked the owners of the houses they were fighting to protect if they had insurance, had the owners said no, they would have moved on to the next house. That, obviously didn't happen.
I dont think you can be uninsured and go back to where you were in terms of ownership, although I cant see that many home owners not having insurance.
To Dorothy, the medicare. I dont think you should have to have medicare but I cant see that there is that much difference in concept. So all the tax payers pay money for the health system and then many tax payers also pay medical insurance. So the people who dont contribute/work benefit by not paying any contribution.
But noone says, you didnt contribute so you shouldnt get a heart transplant. Also maybe its the people I meet, but most australian born working people seem to have insurance, whilst lots of expats don't. I dont think its a bad thing really, but the health system is struggling and by not assisting you are potentially going to drain funds in times of an emergency.
I think I agree with some suggestions by Renth - equal distribution, noone loses their no claims bonus and its just a set amount per party from the donations - so like a trauma payment to help out those in a tragedy.
It wont happen but it would be interesting to see some stats on how many people are uninsured, how much their houses were worth and whether they were owned.
Vivienne
#86
Forum Regular
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 104
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
I read in the paper that of the 2000 buildings destroyed around 400 were uninsured so it is a significant ammount.
#87
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,144
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
If its that many its amazing so many people can be so stupid.
I also read that buderim was the type of area that would be problematic if a fire took hold.
Viv
I also read that buderim was the type of area that would be problematic if a fire took hold.
Viv
Last edited by viviennef; Feb 16th 2009 at 10:19 am.
#88
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
So I think I missed something along the way - was this originally a newspaper story or something. Where did the volunteers say that they didnt think the money should be spent that way? Were many people really uninsured, or is it just a hypothetical debate.
No, it was comments by volunteers both here and on other forums. I am not saying in any way that they are callous or uncaring, simply that they have expressed the opinion that the people who were uninsured should not get their houses rebuilt with money donated to the bushfire appeals.
I dont think you can be uninsured and go back to where you were in terms of ownership, although I cant see that many home owners not having insurance.
To Dorothy, the medicare. I dont think you should have to have medicare but I cant see that there is that much difference in concept.
Permanent residents, citizens and refugees are all eligible for free, taxpayer funded Medicare in Australia. Residents of some countries with reciprocal agreements can access Medicare which then bills the country of origin's health system for services. Private medical is recommended and taxed if you earn over a certain amount.
So all the tax payers pay money for the health system and then many tax payers also pay medical insurance. So the people who dont contribute/work benefit by not paying any contribution.
No. People who don't work still pay by paying taxes on purchases.
But noone says, you didnt contribute so you shouldnt get a heart transplant.
COLOR="red"]That's right. Medicare is taxpayer funded, not charity donations.[/COLOR]
Also maybe its the people I meet, but most australian born working people seem to have insurance, whilst lots of expats don't. I dont think its a bad thing really, but the health system is struggling and by not assisting you are potentially going to drain funds in times of an emergency.
All eligible residents are entitled to use the services of Medicare. My sister, for example. She's very wealthy and could afford to pay for her cancer treatments in cash if she so wished. She has private cover because she and her husband prefer to choose who their consultant would be. However, she is undergoing treatment for a very aggressive breast cancer at the moment and has elected to go on the public system. By being a part of the public, Medicare system she is part of a clinical trial at a large teaching hospital. By the way, she's been an Australian citizen for over 20 years.
I think I agree with some suggestions by Renth - equal distribution, noone loses their no claims bonus and its just a set amount per party from the donations - so like a trauma payment to help out those in a tragedy.
It wont happen but it would be interesting to see some stats on how many people are uninsured, how much their houses were worth and whether they were owned.
Vivienne
No, it was comments by volunteers both here and on other forums. I am not saying in any way that they are callous or uncaring, simply that they have expressed the opinion that the people who were uninsured should not get their houses rebuilt with money donated to the bushfire appeals.
I dont think you can be uninsured and go back to where you were in terms of ownership, although I cant see that many home owners not having insurance.
To Dorothy, the medicare. I dont think you should have to have medicare but I cant see that there is that much difference in concept.
Permanent residents, citizens and refugees are all eligible for free, taxpayer funded Medicare in Australia. Residents of some countries with reciprocal agreements can access Medicare which then bills the country of origin's health system for services. Private medical is recommended and taxed if you earn over a certain amount.
So all the tax payers pay money for the health system and then many tax payers also pay medical insurance. So the people who dont contribute/work benefit by not paying any contribution.
No. People who don't work still pay by paying taxes on purchases.
But noone says, you didnt contribute so you shouldnt get a heart transplant.
COLOR="red"]That's right. Medicare is taxpayer funded, not charity donations.[/COLOR]
Also maybe its the people I meet, but most australian born working people seem to have insurance, whilst lots of expats don't. I dont think its a bad thing really, but the health system is struggling and by not assisting you are potentially going to drain funds in times of an emergency.
All eligible residents are entitled to use the services of Medicare. My sister, for example. She's very wealthy and could afford to pay for her cancer treatments in cash if she so wished. She has private cover because she and her husband prefer to choose who their consultant would be. However, she is undergoing treatment for a very aggressive breast cancer at the moment and has elected to go on the public system. By being a part of the public, Medicare system she is part of a clinical trial at a large teaching hospital. By the way, she's been an Australian citizen for over 20 years.
I think I agree with some suggestions by Renth - equal distribution, noone loses their no claims bonus and its just a set amount per party from the donations - so like a trauma payment to help out those in a tragedy.
It wont happen but it would be interesting to see some stats on how many people are uninsured, how much their houses were worth and whether they were owned.
Vivienne
Last edited by Dorothy; Feb 16th 2009 at 11:29 am.
#89
Forum Regular
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Fremantle, WA
Posts: 76
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
Without going through every post to see whether this comment has been made already, isn't it possible that some people were unable to get insurance to cover fire because they lived in a high risk area, or for the premium to be so high because of the risk that i would be virtually impossible to afford it? Similar, perhaps to living on a home built on a flood plain in the UK and not being able to be insured for flooding?
#90
BE Forum Addict
Joined: May 2005
Location: Mornington
Posts: 1,650
Re: Should donated money be used for house rebuilding of those who were not insured?
Without going through every post to see whether this comment has been made already, isn't it possible that some people were unable to get insurance to cover fire because they lived in a high risk area, or for the premium to be so high because of the risk that i would be virtually impossible to afford it? Similar, perhaps to living on a home built on a flood plain in the UK and not being able to be insured for flooding?
These areas wouldn't have been classed as any higher risk than most other country towns/villages in Victoria.
The cost of Insurance in Australia isn't prohibitive, the most likely cause was that most of those not insured thought they would take a chance that it would never happen to them.