UPDATES on the FLOODS AFTERMATH & UPDATES on FLOOD RELIEF

[*CountessA*]

Grieving Grantham residents plead for privacy

Residents of the flood-devastated township of Grantham in southern Queensland have asked to be given privacy.

The residents have started going home to their once-picturesque Lockyer Valley town of 370 people.

Most of the 20 deaths from the southern Queensland floods have been in the Lockyer Valley. Twelve people are still listed as missing.

Residents have started returning to the town, where little is recognisable from last Monday when a wall of water tore it apart.

Grantham's residents have not been allowed to return home since the flood as police were effectively treating the town as a crime scene, picking through the debris for the dead and missing.

They will be given at least another week on their own to grieve, with the Lockyer Valley town closed to non-residents.

Local Linda Weston says people just want to go down and see what is on their property and maybe sit for an hour and cry.

'Evidence of terror'

Premier Anna Bligh says the residents of Grantham are reliving the terror of the deadly flash flooding as they return home.

"They are reliving a terrifying and traumatic event," she told the ABC.

She says she was struck by the physical evidence left behind, which spoke of the terror residents endured.

"The houses have great big holes in the roofs where they kicked their way out and literally threw their children onto the roof as the water lapped at their heels," Ms Bligh said.

"They were standing in the kitchen one minute, 30 minutes later they were kicking out a hole in the roof, throwing their children on top of it.

"You can see all that evidence ... and it's evidence of terror."

She says the people of Grantham had a very difficult few weeks ahead as they came to grips with their losses.

"For people who are going in there, reliving all that, as well as confronting what's happened to their properties ... it's going to be a very, very difficult couple of weeks for the people of Grantham," she said.

Flood appeal

As Grantham grieves, the appeal for Queensland's flood victims has surpassed $100 million.

The Premier's flood relief appeal has been helped by a $5 million donation from Wesfarmers, $2 million from Flight Centre and $750,000 from Virgin Blue.

The public has chipped in $31 million so far.

Elsewhere in south-east Queensland, the clean-up continues but was frustrated on Tuesday by a storm that blew down trees and powerlines around Brisbane and Ipswich.

Energex says its crews are still on track to have flood-hit homes that are safe for electricity reconnected by late Thursday.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/19/3116194.htm

[golden]

Queensland Floods
It has been Queensland’s worst disaster on record and while thousands of volunteers are digging deep to help out neighbours and strangers alike, there are also a number of other resources available to help those who have suffered. Although you may not have been directly affected by the floods please pass on this email to friends, neighbours or family if you feel it may be of benefit to them.
Following is a summary of support services available through a number of government and industry bodies.
 
The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment (AGDRP)
 
The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment (AGDRP) has been activated to assist people who have been adversely affected by the heavy rainfall, storm damage and associated flooding that began in November 2010 and continued in January 2011 in the state of Queensland.
 Payments of $1,000 per eligible adult and $400 per eligible child will be made if:
•   a person was seriously injured, or
•   a person is the immediate family member of an Australian killed as a direct result of the disaster, or
•   a person’s principal place of residence has been destroyed, or
•   a person’s principal place of residence has sustained major damage, or
•   a person is unable to gain access to their principal place of residence for a period of 24 hours or more, or
•   a person is stranded in their principal place of residence for a period of 24 hours or more, or
•   a person's principal place of residence was without electricity, water, gas, sewerage services or another essential service for at least 48 hours (a utility failure) and the utility failure was caused by damage to public or private infrastructure, or
•   a person is a principal carer of a dependent child who has experienced any of the above.
Accessing the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment
 
•         Centrelink will assist people affected by these events to access Government assistance quickly.
•         Centrelink social workers and psychologists can provide counseling, support and information about services available.
•         For more information on eligibility or if you have any queries, call Centrelink on 180 22 66.
 The Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy has been activated to assist employees, small business persons, and farmers who have had a loss of income as a direct result of the flooding and severe weather that began from 29 November 2010 and continued in January 2011 in the states of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. It consists of ex-gratia payments equivalent to the maximum rate of Newstart Allowance, as detailed below:
 
Rate   Amount
Single   $469.70 per fortnight
Single with dependent child   $508.20 per fortnight
Partnered   $424 (each) per fortnight
Under 21 (from 1 January 2011)   $388.70 per fortnight
Under 21 (from 29 November 2010 to 31 December 2010)   $377 per fortnight
16-20 year old, single with dependent child   $508.20 per fortnight
 
Eligibility
A claimant will be eligible for the Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy where he/she:
•   derives an income from an area affected by the disaster or resides in an area affected by the disaster; and
•   Is 16 years of age, or older, and is not a dependent child;
•   Is either an Australian resident and living in Australia for the period he/she is receipt of the Subsidy; or a foreign national, living or working in Australia at the time of the disaster and for the period of time he/she is in receipt of the Subsidy;
•   Has experienced a loss of income as a direct result of the disaster and can show evidence supporting this within 28 days; and
•   Is not currently (at the time of lodgement) receiving another income support payment or pension (such as Age Pension, Newstart Allowance, service pension from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, or Exceptional Circumstances Income Relief Payment); and
•   Where a member of a couple, the claimant must qualify in their own right.
More information on how to register and claim can be found at the following website.
http://www.qld.gov.au/floods/support.html
 
Small Business Support
About 10,000 businesses have been directly hit by Queensland's flood disaster but government assistance is ramping up and industry bodies are organising support schemes.
The Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority website provides details of grants of up to $25,000 to assist small businesses and primary producers with clean-up and recovery efforts following the flood crisis (including immediate recovery assistance grants of up to $5000).

Low-interest loans of up to $250,000 are also available to fund the repair and/or replacement of damaged plant and equipment, buildings or stock.

The Federal Government said small business owners who were flood victims could receive about $250 a week for the next three months.
Businesses can check if a deferral has been received by checking on the ATO's Business Portal website or calling the emergency support info line on 1800 806 218.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/business-owner/help-on-the-way-for-flood-business-owners/story-e6frfm5i-1225989218485#ixzz1BFFJLLN9
 
FLOOD CRISIS - Who to contact

Queensland Government
www.qld.gov.au/floods

Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority
www.qraa.qld.gov.au
Ph 1800 623 946

Federal Government
www.disasterassist.gov.au
Ph 180 2266

Australian Taxation Office
www.ato.gov.au/business
Ph 1800 806 218

Ipswich Chamber of Commerce & Industry
www.ipswichchamber.org.au
Ph 3810 6666

Chamber of Commerce & Industry Queensland
www.cciq. com.au/fl oods
Ph 1300 135 822
 
Pro Bono Financial Advice
For those affected, many start the painstaking process of rebuilding their lives - in some instances from scratch. We are here for our clients to help with advice and planning to aid in the re-building process. This might be for family, parents or business owners looking at managing cashflow in the short term. It might be in providing assistance in understanding and claiming any of the eligible subsidies on offer.
As part of the Financial Planning Association's pro-bono program we are offering advice free of charge to flood victims, so please don't hesitate to contact us or pass on our details if we can be of assistance.
 
Kind Regards

[*smee*]

[golden]

I've got some amazing pictures of this..

"TOLL LOGISTICS Larapinta -  BRISBANE - hope you're not waiting for a package"...

But I'm afraid of that attachment thingo..

So on this occassion I will refrain.   There are going to be some very ordinary DSR's coming up.


P.S That pro bono financial advice email is open to all, I just left the details off the C and P cos I didn't want to be seen as pushing some company agenda.  PM me if you want contact details

[*Brum6y*]

But I'm afraid of that attachment thingo..

Do you have a Photobucket account?

If you want to avoid any and all potential   you can upload your photos there and plug in ALL the links you want in your posts here!

There are other picture hosting services that can do the same - but I just used Photobucket as an example.  There are free accounts and paid accounts - but the free one has enough space for a lot of photos.  There are a lot of features, but if you just want to start off with uploading piccies for displaying here, then it won't take you long at all to figure it out.  Besides, there are a few people here who know their way around it.

[tellomon]

I disagree.
Pb is #2 the most difficult site to navigate and use.
Facebook is #1.

[*Brum6y*]

I'm only talking about:

 1. Upload photos
 2. Put them in a folder (if you are adventurous)  It's not essential, but it helps organise things if you have a lot of images.
 3. Copy the [IMG] links to paste here

Anything beyond that and all bets are off.

[golden]

The photos are in an email and sorry Brumby its just too hard for me.   Its alot of photos that are of every conceivable package floating in massive sheds of water.  Many have Christmas wrapping, so that will teach em to deliver prior to the 25th, haha, At this point anyone who had shares or their super tied up in insurance are going to do it hard.

[*CountessA*]

Email them to me and I'll upload them to my Photobucket account, Golden. Then I can link as many as you like.

OR...

Use my very easy guide to using Photobucket. http://www.ozroundtable.com/index.php?topic=3531.0

[79ftruck]

For A Reason NOT To Cross Running Water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgF4MHWYgjY

[tellomon]

Awesome vid there, truck!

[*smee*]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/julia-gillard-to-announce-10b-in-cuts-and-a-flood-tax/story-e6frf7jo-1225995142030?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

Middle income-earners will pay 0.5 per cent of their taxable income for flood reconstruction while those on more than $100,000 will pay 1 per cent under a rebuilding levy announced today
“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

ummm I think Jooooooooolya may need to go back to school

$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week 

I think what she should have said was those on $50,000 a year will pay just under $5 per week isnt it funny how slips of the tongue always work in that creatures favour ...she is a very very very nasty piece of work who lies at the drop of a hat (ok she is a polly and they all fib , but she is a low life manipulating scoundrel and this would have been a deliberate attempt at misleading the public)   so taxing everyone this much is going to raise under $2b and yet Kev managed to blow $43b in 6 months on 2 useless gfc packages ...the plonker
make the insulation installation con men pay for the flood damage I reckon and Kev and Peter con-head Garrett who gave them all OUR cash

[*r3830*]

Strange..... I get the distinct impression you don't have a lot of faith in Julia smee???

[*smee*]

thats very perceptive of you Loco , I didnt think I had made that clear

[*r3830*]

Check this one out smee - might make you feel better!

Flood tax: what you will pay




http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603

[Elantra]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/julia-gillard-to-announce-10b-in-cuts-and-a-flood-tax/story-e6frf7jo-1225995142030?referrer=email&source=HS_email_nl&emcmp=HS&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

Middle income-earners will pay 0.5 per cent of their taxable income for flood reconstruction while those on more than $100,000 will pay 1 per cent under a rebuilding levy announced today
“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

ummm I think Jooooooooolya may need to go back to school

$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week 

I think what she should have said was those on $50,000 a year will pay just under $5 per week isnt it funny how slips of the tongue always work in that creatures favour ...she is a very very very nasty piece of work who lies at the drop of a hat (ok she is a polly and they all fib , but she is a low life manipulating scoundrel and this would have been a deliberate attempt at misleading the public)   so taxing everyone this much is going to raise under $2b and yet Kev managed to blow $43b in 6 months on 2 useless gfc packages ...the plonker
make the insulation installation con men pay for the flood damage I reckon and Kev and Peter con-head Garrett who gave them all OUR cash

Thanks for putting up that link smee.
I did suspect that the MAD MONK would oppose the levy.
Of course he will, just goes to show, oppose for opposition sake.
What a mean spirited person he must be.

Smee I think you might find your figures are wrong & maybe you should go back to school.
The way I heard it is
you pay 0.5% on earnings, FROM $50,001 to $100,000
Then 1.00% on earnings, OVER $100,000

[Elantra]

Check this one out smee - might make you feel better!

Flood tax: what you will pay




http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603

Have the courage to call it what it is.
It is a one off levy, to help rebuild Queensland.
Thanks for putting that link up to show how much each of us is contributing to the fund.

[*Brum6y*]

Elantra, the point is not the arithmetic per se, it is this statement:

“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

That is an untruth.

It is also a typical 'slip of the tongue' that politicians can - and do - use to confuse the masses during a press interrogation to make things seem less onerous than they are.  Afterwards, when the actual calculations take effect, it's old news and not so damaging to the politician's image.

This is the point Smee made, I thought.


(Gee people type faster than me!! - my comment relates to post #11)

[Elantra]

Elantra, the point is not the arithmetic per se, it is this statement:

“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,” Ms Gillard said.

That is an untruth.

It is also a typical 'slip of the tongue' that politicians can - and do - use to confuse the masses during a press interrogation to make things seem less onerous than they are.  Afterwards, when the actual calculations take effect, it's old news and not so damaging to the politician's image.

This is the point Smee made, I thought.


(Gee people type faster than me!! - my comment relates to post #11)

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/flood-tax-what-you-will-pay/story-fn7ik2te-1225995519603

[*Brum6y*]

Did Julia Gillard say:

“A person earning $100,000 per year will pay just under an extra $5 per week,”

Yes or No ?

[*smee*]

having read the link to the schedule that Loco posted the figures quoted now make more sense
but it probably doesnt matter cos the chances of it getting through parliment are slim at best

[*Brum6y*]

having read the link to the schedule that Loco posted the figures quoted now make more sense
but it probably doesnt matter cos the chances of it getting through parliment are slim at best

Yes.  It's not as if they have a majority to direct passage of such legislation by a party vote.

More negotiations, methinks...?

[*r3830*]

Wouldn't it be funny if the Greens rejected it! Wouldn't it be even funnier if that led to a new election! I think I'd just have to have a giggle...... or three!

[*Brum6y*]

Gee - just what we need in dealing with floods ... politicians scrambling for the lifeboats.

[*smee*]

Loco if it caused another election it would justify mother natures decision to impose the flood on us , the good mother probably reckons the flood will cause less long term pain and suffering than a Gillard govt will

[*r3830*]

Greens warn more levies on the cards

"While it's obviously important to help in the reconstruction, it's important we don't cut off our nose to spite our face," he told AAP.

"This is probably the first of more climate-extreme levies that are going to be needed." (The Greens)

It was a call also heard from independent MP Rob Oakeshott, who along with fellow independent Tony Windsor, will be checking the fine print before declaring their support one way or the other.

Some $450 million has been ripped from regional Australia funding - which the pair established when they helped Labor form government last year.

 
"Just when you thought it was safe......"

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/floodrelief/greens-warn-more-levies-on-the-cards/story-fn7ik2te-1225995676896

[Elantra]

 HHHMMMmmmm,,  Hypocrisy?  Nah, of course not.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/politics-must-not-muddy-levy-plan/story-e6frerg6-1225993700197




"We are Australians, we help each other out when the mud hits the fan and we tend to resent cheap politics intruding on getting the job done."

But not here, we only criticize here, we never give credit here, that's not our way here.
We take the attitude here.
My house didn't get flooded so I don't give a RATS.

[Elantra]

having read the link to the schedule that Loco posted the figures quoted now make more sense
but it probably doesnt matter cos the chances of it getting through parliment are slim at best

  Am I the loco?
Are you going back to school this term ot next??

[*smee*]

no Loco is r3830 and if you read my post you will see that my maths were perfect

show me one mathematical error in these
$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week
both equations are mathematically perfect

[Elantra]

no Loco is r3830 and if you read my post you will see that my maths were perfect

show me one mathematical error in these
$5 per week so that would be 52 x 5 = $260
1 % levy  of $100,000 = $1000 for the year or $19.23 per week
both equations are mathematically perfect

  2+2=4 but whats that got to do with anything here???

[*CountessA*]

I don't think the Greens mind humans being taxed to the point of it hurting their income; mind you, if the frogs were being taxed, that would be another matter.

I am affronted at this notion of a levy. There are serious issues here. Don't be fooled into thinking this is HELPING THE VICTIMS of the floods... It's not. I quote: "This one-year, $1.8 billion levy would help the Government pay for the estimated $5.6 billion hit to the federal budget caused by the floods." In plain words, this is a levy to pay for things that are on an ongoing basis paid for by Australian taxes. If taxation money can't pay for this rebuilding, why not? Where is that money? It certainly hasn't been spent; we know there's a surplus - a substantial one.

I repeat: the levy isn't to help the victims. It's to help the government get out of a substantial portion of its responsibility to rebuild.

I think a great many people who gave generously and without counting the cost to help the victims are going to feel very, very outraged. Can they actually afford this additional cost? And even beyond that - should they have to afford this cost?

[*r3830*]

Elantra - smee was referring to the link that I posted - which you referred to being his. I'm loco as a matter of interest.

Now.... where was I.....

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE VERY VERY FAST BROADBAND! It will be about as modern as a new FX Holden when it appears over the next ten years...... but we will have it! Never mind the low takeup.... never mind that most takeup is at 25Mbps.... we will have it! And bu***r the people.... they can go without so we can! We might have to go with smee's calculations in order to achieve a surplus.... but opportunities will appear between now and 2014. The only drawback will be having the Greens firmly attached to our left one. 

But seriously.... at least they had the common decency to wait until the public in this nation dislodged around $100 Million from their pockets... prior to making the donations compulsory. Dear ..soles.

[*smee*]

2+2=4 but whats that got to do with anything here???

just stating that nothing was wrong with my maths so why would I need to go back to school to learn maths when my maths were correct ....
 however if you wish to keep playing your nit picking tit for tat gameswith me  feel free ... you might have more nits than I have picks but I may have more tats than you have tits .... so let the games begin  ...

 

[Elantra]

I am affronted at this notion of a levy. There are serious issues here. Don't be fooled into thinking this is HELPING THE VICTIMS of the floods... It's not. I quote: "This one-year, $1.8 billion levy would help the Government pay for the estimated $5.6 billion hit to the federal budget caused by the floods." In plain words, this is a levy to pay for things that are on an ongoing basis paid for by Australian taxes. If taxation money can't pay for this rebuilding, why not? Where is that money? It certainly hasn't been spent; we know there's a surplus - a substantial one.

I repeat: the levy isn't to help the victims. It's to help the government get out of a substantial portion of its responsibility to rebuild.

I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence.

[*r3830*]

Message to Indonesia: Considering that you told us to 'nick-off' regarding our refugee resort on your fair lands.... can we have our $500 Million dollars back please? Our schools here are in desperate need of refurbishment - as are the homes of many of our people.

And Kev.... is that seat on the UN really of such great importance.... now think carefully on that question.... seat on the UN - or homes for your residents? How about you kick the tin with that $400 Million dollars you spent. Much more comfy chairs on Ebay - and at a shade of the cost. And with postage.... these good things come to YOU!

There you have it..... $900 Million may just help!

[*smee*]

I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appalling .

tats 1 - tits 0

[Elantra]

Message to Indonesia: Considering that you told us to 'nick-off' regarding our refugee resort on your fair lands.... can we have our $500 Million dollars back please? Our schools here are in desperate need of refurbishment - as are the homes of many of our people.

And Kev.... is that seat on the UN really of such great importance.... now think carefully on that question.... seat on the UN - or homes for your residents? How about you kick the tin with that $400 Million dollars you spent. Much more comfy chairs on Ebay - and at a shade of the cost. And with postage.... these good things come to YOU!

There you have it..... $900 Million may just help!

The top eight countries for Australia Government aid in 2010-2011 (in millions of dollars)

Indonesia 458.7
Papua New Guinea 457.2
Solomon Islands 225.7
Afghanistan 123.1
Vietnam 119.8
Philippines 118.1
East Timor 102.7
Cambodia 64.2

A total of 1669.5 (in millions of dollars)

WOW!!

[Elantra]

I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appallling .

tats 1 - tits 0

Fair enough, but is there really three "l"s in apalling?
Off to School now.

[*smee*]

I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appallling .

tats 1 - tits 0

Fair enough, but is there really three "l"s in apalling?
Off to School now.

do you mean are there 3 l's or is there 3 l's ...or is it acceptable to use either ?
but there should be 2 p's , so off you trot !

[*CountessA*]

Elantra, what part of what I said caused you concern?

I would encourage you to check the available information about what this levy will be paying for. I quote: "Q How much money will be collected and what will it be spent on? / A About $1.8 billion. It will go towards rebuilding flood damaged infrastructure such as roads and bridges, mostly in Queensland but also in Victoria." As you can see, this clearly indicates that it's the rebuilding of infrastructure that is being paid for by this levy, not the homes or businesses of flood victims.

Source: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/flood-levy-what-you-need-to-know/story-fn6bfkm6-1225995796509

[Elantra]

I am appalled with what you say.
Its very easy to say that but it means nothing unless you.
Show me the evidence.


going back to school to study the use of punctuation are we ?
I mean really to use a full stop after the word you , appallling .

tats 1 - tits 0

Fair enough, but is there really three "l"s in apalling?
Off to School now.

do you mean are there 3 l's or is there 3 l's ...or is it acceptable to use either ?
but there should be 2 p's , so off you trot !

Tell you what I'll do. I'll save you a Desk next to me.

[*r3830*]

smee..... are you into 'tits' or 'tats'? I thought I already had a reasonable idea..... but now I'm confussssed!

And Countess - You're correct. The government's interest is only in infrastructure. The fallout by the insurance companies as to whether a flood was in fact a flood - or perhaps a flood of a different sort, or a tsunami of the inland variety, or a failure of the dam controllers in not releasing more water more quickly, or whether is was just a flood incident..... is yet to be determined. A new definition is being discovered so that they can further avoid their responsibilities. It was reported that the repairs to peoples' homes was coming from the Premiers Recovery fund. ie: donations from all Australians.

[*smee*]

Tell you what I'll do. I'll save you a Desk next to me.
 
Oh dear a capital D for desk in the middle of a sentence.
looks like I can't have a desk next to you as you will be standing in the dunce corner.

By the way I am still waiting for you to point out where my maths equation was incorrect.
Or is it like the rest of your posts you just come in flapping your gums with no real substance to back up the tripe you spew forth ?  
 
Your soul contributions are to have a go at other posters instead of constructive discussion on the points , you always play the man , typical supporter of the greens party , huge chip on the shoulder .
Want to keep playing ? Or are you going to spit your rag ,burst into tears and quit like last time you went on the attack and copped some of your own vile bitter medicine in retaliation  ?
If you think you copped the rough end of the pineapple last time , believe me when I say I am far better at the game than your last opponents.   

[*smee*]

Elantra, what part of what I said caused you concern?

No answer ....see to answer that would mean having to come up with a post with some  substance , and of course the cupboard is bare.
The only way Elantra knows how to answer a post is to attack the poster , if the answer requires logic , thought or constructive debate , then forget it , its not in the repertoire .

[*smee*]

its really no fun playing this game when the opponent retires hurt after only a few returns of serve and slinks off without even conceding that they are conceding .

Its almost like a forfeit .... appalling

Actually I have just read back of the last few posts and noticed that I was being vindictive, rude, obnoxious , silly , pigheaded and spiteful to another member , hell for a moment there I nearly avoided responding to direct questions  and I started to worry that I may have been turning into a Greens supporter and a Labor fanatic but then I realised that I had sound purpose for my taking of that stance, and the fact that I could actually recognise that I was behaving this way enabled me to let out a sigh of relief that I hadnt suffered from that infliction .

Goodnight all
Elantra see you back here in in a couple of months after the next federal election when Joolya gets defeated by a record margin .... keep training and maybe you will be up for a better game next time , if you can work your way up through the little league

[*Brum6y*]

This may sound like I'm on the insurers' side - but only a little bit.

The definition of certain events is critical - and policy holders NEED to understand exactly what is and is NOT covered. On this score, many policy holders are less than informed - HOWEVER, the insurance companies have NOT made adequate effort to make the exercise understandable.

And, in some cases, I have no doubt that there have been deceitful practices used.

But getting back to the definitions.... Insurance companies operate by taking a particular risk and calculating two basic things:
 (1) How likely is this to happen?
   and
 (2) How much will it cost if it does happen?

This is the job of an actuary

In the case of flooding there is (from the little I know) quite a few variations on how you define a flood, but I will keep to a simple and easily understandable example to show why the costs of insurance are what they are.

In my example, I will stick to one differentiating characteristic - the direction of the water ingress.  Don't laugh - the reason is very simple.
Scenario 1. If water is flowing down a hill and runs through your house, then it is obviously on its way somewhere - but only the houses in its direct path will be affected - and that is likely to be a relatively small number of properties.
Scenario 2. However, if water cannot get away quickly enough and they bank up, causing the water level to rise, then large areas will be inundated - which means a large number of houses will be affected.

Now, if Scenario 1 occurs, it may affect 100 houses.  If the cost of repairs averages at $20,000 then the insurer will be looking at a payout of $2,000,000

However, if Scenario 2 occurs, it may affect 5,000 houses. If the cost of repairs averages at $20,000 then the insurer will be looking at a payout of $100,000,000

If an actuary works out that, on average, this is the yearly risk and the insurer has 100,000 policies, then to cover Scenario 1, they only need $20 from each policy premium and that is reasonably affordable - but for scenario 2 they will need $1,000 - which becomes far too expensive for most people. True flood cover IS very expensive for exactly this reason. (apologies to any actuaries for the extreme simplification)

Remember, insurance companies are businesses - they must have more money coming in than going out - or they will go bust.


Now if you still feel that this is unfair - answer me this: Would you try to claim a win from a bookie on a bet you didn't make?

Didn't think so.

Yet, that is what insurance companies are like - bookies! (apologies to any bookies out there).

The sequence is a little different and the horse names bizarre, but the mechanics are pretty much the same. It might go like this:
A punter walks up to a bookie and says "I want to make a bet"
 Bookie: "Sure. On what?"
 Punter: "House burning down"
 Bookie: "OK then, how much do you want to win?"
 Punter: "$250,000"
 Bookie: "Righto - that'll be $400 and it's good for a year!"
 Punter: "Ta mate" and he walks off with the betting slip.

Then imagine the exchange if the punter turns up to claim his win on that bet when a huge tree fell through the middle of his house.


Now getting back to the serious side ... while these 'definitions' are so drastically important, the twists and turns that insurance companies put these things through end up producing a maze of confusion and misunderstanding.  The cynics out there may claim that as deliberate - and I might be hard pressed to argue against that, even if I was inclined to try.

They need to be clear, and they need to be standardised so that not only can insurance products be more easliy compared, but so that all the little loopholes are cut off.  The cost of insurance may still be an issue - but at least everyone will understand exactly what is involved.

[*r3830*]

Brum - many thanks for your thoughts. A pity that your example isn't included in the terms and understandings of an insurance contract!

We read our insurance policy recently..... all 42 pages. (perhaps the size of this document also prevents most from actually reading it. The cynic could suggest that this is the reason for such a large document)

Well, here in Penrith, at the base of the Blue Mountains.... we are covered for tsunami damage - but not for damage caused by the sea. I intend to keep a very, very close eye on the Nepean River.... haven't seen a tsunami come out of there as yet - but the insurer obviously sees this as a threat! I wonder if the above ground swimming pool spits the big one and bursts its banks - whether the forthcoming tsunami from that event would be covered?

[*Brum6y*]

Brum - many thanks for your thoughts. A pity that your example isn't included in the terms and understandings of an insurance contract!

My example was just to present a basic idea of some common principles.  When it comes to the various contract documents - there is little they have in common and some might say they are devoid of principles!

Also, I might be opening up a huge can of worms if I interpret something one way and the insurer meant something different - with the poor punter in the middle finding out the hard way.

[Elantra]

-- Removed as per request --

[shyer]

..........
Love your work.

Elentra I love your work too.

We never see you till objective critizum of any labour / loonie left / greenie goverment is presented. And in you rush with 1/2 truths, spin and emotion.

You must be a closet Right winger you are turning people away from the left