[NKSK version 2]

Just interested to cut through the other thread to get a more definite feel of opinion on here.

[moneypenny20]

I wish you'd put a 'don't know' box If the people uninsured were so strapped for cash that they couldn't afford insurance then yes. If they could afford it be chose to spend that money on pokies then no but there's no way of working that one out so in general my answer would be yes - I think

[NKSK version 2]

Originally Posted by moneypen20 I wish you'd put a 'don't know' box If the people uninsured were so strapped for cash that they couldn't afford insurance then yes. If they could afford it be chose to spend that money on pokies then no but there's no way of working that one out so in general my answer would be yes - I think

Can you edit it and put a don't know?

[Pollyana]

Originally Posted by NKSK version 2 Can you edit it and put a don't know?

Moneypen can't, but I have

[asprilla]

I voted "yes". It is true that many people will not have bothered with insurance because they had a "it won't happen to me" attitude. I'm sure many of these same folks would argue "but we can't afford insurance" (which is a load of bs in my opinion).

But the fact remains that these people have made a mistake and we should give them a 2nd chance. Perhaps then, they will insure their brand new houses when they are finished being built.

For what its worth, I believe that some form of insurance should be compulsory for people who live in high risk locations.

[bridie]

no, insurance isnt very expensive and there is no excuse to not have it

[ozzieeagle]

Originally Posted by moneypen20 I wish you'd put a 'don't know' box If the people uninsured were so strapped for cash that they couldn't afford insurance then yes. If they could afford it be chose to spend that money on pokies then no but there's no way of working that one out so in general my answer would be yes - I think

Exactly, if there is ever a case for means testing, it comes around "free house time" and why wasn't you insured.

Hardship yes.... six slabs a week, or a pokie addiction probably not... even then it depends on the other factors in the family.

So another dont know'er. Btw there are still six slabs a weeks drinkers out there.

[ozzieeagle]

Originally Posted by asprilla I voted "yes". It is true that many people will not have bothered with insurance because they had a "it won't happen to me" attitude. I'm sure many of these same folks would argue "but we can't afford insurance" (which is a load of bs in my opinion). But the fact remains that these people have made a mistake and we should give them a 2nd chance. Perhaps then, they will insure their brand new houses when they are finished being built. For what its worth, I believe that some form of insurance should be compulsory for people who live in high risk locations.

Problem is those people that are the wouldnt happen to me, are the same people that dont insure their cars or have any other Insurance. I doubt if you would feel so happy if you only had 3rd party fire and theft insurance, because thats all you could afford, and someone wrote off your 6 year old 10,000 dollar car. Probably not the best analogy in these circumstances, but a real one none the less.

Insurance is a must, it's how we set about getting to that stage that is the test. Personal liability for houses is also a vital insurance.

[moneypenny20]

If they don't use the donated money to rebuild the uninsured, what would the money go on? There is a fair whack in the kitty already and growing bigger all the time, it's got to be spent on something.

I heard yesterday on the radio (must be true ) that due to the claims down in Vic, everyone's insurance in the country will likely go up. Won't be impressed if it does but I guess the Ins Cos have to make their profits somewhere and at least I still have something to insure

[Dorothy]

In order to have a mortgage with our lender we have to prove insurance to the value of our house. I would have thought it was the same for everyone.

I voted no for a number of reasons. As someone else said, people who live in high risk areas and don't insure their homes are likely the same people who don't insure their vehicles. If they hit a tree and wrote off their car should the charity of others buy them a new one?

I also don't think it fair to the other homeowners who did have insurance. They're the ones who did everything right and should have their homes rebuilt right away. It sends a wrong message in my opinion if those who didn't bother with insurance benefit.

As for where the money should go, I think it should go into helping to replace a lot of things for everyone. Things that were destroyed/ruined in the fires that people don't think to insure like their clothing and furniture which will never lose the smell of smoke. Also the things that insurance doesn't cover. I haven't looked at my auto policy, but I wouldn't think it would cover destruction by bushfire. I also think the money should be used to pay for funerals for everyone who perished. A funeral is not cheap.

[quoll]

No. It is really bad for the community recovery if people perceive that some folk, because they werent responsible and looking after their own security, are given a handout from charity to compensate whereas folks who were responsible get nothing. It's one of the biggest barriers to community recovery and can set up all sorts of divisions. If one lot is going to get it then the other lot should too.

[Dorothy]

Originally Posted by quoll No. It is really bad for the community recovery if people perceive that some folk, because they werent responsible and looking after their own security, are given a handout from charity to compensate whereas folks who were responsible get nothing. It's one of the biggest barriers to community recovery and can set up all sorts of divisions. If one lot is going to get it then the other lot should too.

That's my feeling precisely, Quoll.

[Machiavelli]

It takes all types to 'make' a community. It's the people in the community that we want to help.

I don't care whether people had insurance or not, whether they smoked or drank, played the pokies, it makes no difference to me. They all lost everything. TBH I'm a bit shocked that there could be anyone who would make a difference between one victim and another.

My donation was to help anyone who was affected by the fires.

M

[Dorothy]

Originally Posted by Machiavelli I agree with Quoll. It takes all types to 'make' a community. It's the people in the community that we want to help. I don't care whether people had insurance or not, whether they smoked or drank, played the pokies, it makes no difference to me. They all lost everything. TBH I'm a bit shocked that there could be anyone who would make a difference between one victim and another. My donation was to help anyone who was affected by the fires. M

I don't think Quoll was saying that at all. I think she was saying that charity should NOT pay to rebuild the homes of those who were uninsured.

[Machiavelli]

Originally Posted by Dorothy I don't think Quoll was saying that at all. I think she was saying that charity should NOT pay to rebuild the homes of those who were uninsured.

Sorry Dorothy, I appear to have misunderstood Quoll's post.

I've edited my post.

Thanks for your help.

M xxx