In response to my collegues post of Raising Your Voice, my mindset has changed about young people voting, including myself. Please see the following response:
Justin, I agree that more of our generation needs to vote. I am 21 years old and I am a strong believer in voting, but don't always do it. I make sure I vote for presidential elections, but I used to think that was the only thing that was important. I think it's just lack of knowledge on our part that the city or county elections are as important as presidential elections.
With technology and media these days, our minds are on something completely different than policital issues. Only when it has to do with us do we stand up and fight. Our minds are flooded with reality shows and what Paris eats for breakfast than politics. Politics has become a negative word to our ears because of different intersts and beliefs and of course the war. Young people strive so hard to get attention, by what we call emo, cutting themselves, starting drama, etc. And to think that voting raises our voice? When what or who we vote for doesn't win? That was just a waste of time! I believe all the above is the mindset that young people have now a days, and I've fallen victim to sometime in the past.
Now being just a few years older, and taking a government course to open my eyes to how important voting and other issues are other than who's president. My mindset has completely changed, and now I am going to make an effort to stay ontop of the local and state news, instead of so much of entertainment news.
Friday, August 10
Saturday, August 4
Katrina Victims at a Loss Once Again
This particular story caught my attention not only because they are bringing up yet again more problems with Katrina's damage and victims, but also because I work at an insurance company, and have been in this industry for the past five years.
Hurricane Katrina victims face yet again another set back in getting on with their normal lives and piecing back together what they used to have. Since this castrophe, tens of thousands of claims have been submitted to insurance companies to recover money to rebuild homes and businesses. However, the federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that the insureds cannot receive money for their losses by hurrican Katrina. An insurance attorney and analyst stated, "Insureres could have taken a multibillion dollar hit if the ruling had gone against the industry." Judge Carolyn King of a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated, "This even was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs' insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written." The decision overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., who claimed last November that the language excluding water damage from some insurance policies were ambiguous, and the policies did not distinguis between floods caused by an act of God-such as excessive rainfall- and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina's landfall.
The appeals panel concluded that, "even if the plaintiffs can prove that the levees were negligently designed, constructed, or maintained and that the breaches were due to this negligence, the flood exclusions in the plaintiffs' policies unambiguously preclude their recovery."
After reading this article, I had many thoughts and opinions run through my head at once. One, actually being on the side of the insurance companies since I work for one and know the background of certain policies, second, siding with the victims who were probly kept in the dark about flood policies as opposed to homeowners policies, and third, siding with the victims out of pure sympathy.
However, at my insurance company, who I shall not name for the sake that this is wide spread over the internet, we have only a small percentage of customers who actually purchase flood polices. In order to purchase a flood policy, you have either have to a) be in a flood zone or b) be forced to purchase one through your mortgage company. Usually these both happen at the same time. Normal homeowners policies that are purchased by the public when you buy a house does not cover flood damage. But if you live in what's call a flood zone, either you live by a body of water, or you are under the 100 year flood zone, your mortgage company may force you to buy a flood policy to cover any possible damages. Now, with New Orleans, they had man- made levees that will protect them so they probably were not under a "flood zone" that their mortgage companies forced them to buy one. Who would want to buy flood insurance when you have these huge walls to protect you? But on the other hand, nothing man-made is indestructible. We learnded this lesson through the Titanic right? So only less than 10% of the people bought flood insurance policies and received money.
Also New Orleans is a low-income area, so even if some people may have wanted to buy flood insurance, they may have not been able to afford it. Homeowners insurance is expensive enough, and then you have to buy flood insurance on top of homeowners insurance. Even states like us with the closest body of water is the Gulf, not many hurricane's have reached us and caused torrential damage. So not many people were concerned about buying a policy that covers flood.
Now, insurance polices are very hard to understand if you have no background or knowledge of the insurance field. So a big part of this court battle was the "ambiguous language" of the policy. This may have been true to the publics eye, but to the insurance company they know exactly what they are writing or exactly how to write ambiguously. And again, this rules in favor of the insurance company. If this had ruled against the insurance companies, they would have probably gone bankrupt and not be able to provide coverage for all the other people that have different lines of insurance with them, such as auto insurance. No insurance company has this huge bank that sits with all the monthly payments you make for your auto policy. No, it goes directly to other people that are currently making claims on damages, commissions, fees, and other costs of the insurance company. So to have a multi billion dollar hit would completely inialate an insurance company. Especially the smaller ones.
Currently since the events of Katrina, the insurance company I work for does not even sell flood or homeowners policies along the coastline anymore. We start accepting policies starting in Houston, which is about 50 miles from the coast. Many insurance companies are doing this to avoid potential massive claims and lawsuits just like this article.
Now I feel bad for these people who didn't understand their insurance policies or just plain lack of knowledge on their part that they cannot receive money for their house. But insurance policies are put in place to cover certain acts and damage, but not all. For instance insurance policies exclude act of terrorism and damage from a war. If this was to be covered and paid out, insurance companies under a normal policy would not have enough money to literally rebuild a whole city out of an act of terrorism. I completely agree with the courts ruling, but I am at the same time sad for each and every victim of Katrina.
Some measures you can take is to make certain your homeowners or commercial property coverage is in force and that it provides adequate coverage to pay the full replacement cost of your property. Make sure you understand what the policy does and does not cover. If you have questions regarding the terms or coverage provided under the policy, contact your agent. If you’ve made improvements to your home, consider increasing your policy’s limits to cover the enhanced value of the property. Even without recent improvements, property values increase over time and insurance policies should be adjusted accordingly.
If your property is located in one of Texas’ 14 coastal counties, or parts of southeastern Harris County, your homeowners policy may not provide windstorm coverage. You may be able to obtain insurance coverage for windstorm or hail damage from a special insurance pool, contact your agent to inquire about this coverage.
The whole purpose for all this explanation, is people immediately blame the insurance companies, but do not take the time to read their policy, or even think how any company could afford such damages. And in this selection, I was glad to dare to think differently and look at a different side- the insurance company's side.
To read more on the original article please go to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_INSURANCE?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Hurricane Katrina victims face yet again another set back in getting on with their normal lives and piecing back together what they used to have. Since this castrophe, tens of thousands of claims have been submitted to insurance companies to recover money to rebuild homes and businesses. However, the federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that the insureds cannot receive money for their losses by hurrican Katrina. An insurance attorney and analyst stated, "Insureres could have taken a multibillion dollar hit if the ruling had gone against the industry." Judge Carolyn King of a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated, "This even was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs' insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written." The decision overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., who claimed last November that the language excluding water damage from some insurance policies were ambiguous, and the policies did not distinguis between floods caused by an act of God-such as excessive rainfall- and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina's landfall.
The appeals panel concluded that, "even if the plaintiffs can prove that the levees were negligently designed, constructed, or maintained and that the breaches were due to this negligence, the flood exclusions in the plaintiffs' policies unambiguously preclude their recovery."
After reading this article, I had many thoughts and opinions run through my head at once. One, actually being on the side of the insurance companies since I work for one and know the background of certain policies, second, siding with the victims who were probly kept in the dark about flood policies as opposed to homeowners policies, and third, siding with the victims out of pure sympathy.
However, at my insurance company, who I shall not name for the sake that this is wide spread over the internet, we have only a small percentage of customers who actually purchase flood polices. In order to purchase a flood policy, you have either have to a) be in a flood zone or b) be forced to purchase one through your mortgage company. Usually these both happen at the same time. Normal homeowners policies that are purchased by the public when you buy a house does not cover flood damage. But if you live in what's call a flood zone, either you live by a body of water, or you are under the 100 year flood zone, your mortgage company may force you to buy a flood policy to cover any possible damages. Now, with New Orleans, they had man- made levees that will protect them so they probably were not under a "flood zone" that their mortgage companies forced them to buy one. Who would want to buy flood insurance when you have these huge walls to protect you? But on the other hand, nothing man-made is indestructible. We learnded this lesson through the Titanic right? So only less than 10% of the people bought flood insurance policies and received money.
Also New Orleans is a low-income area, so even if some people may have wanted to buy flood insurance, they may have not been able to afford it. Homeowners insurance is expensive enough, and then you have to buy flood insurance on top of homeowners insurance. Even states like us with the closest body of water is the Gulf, not many hurricane's have reached us and caused torrential damage. So not many people were concerned about buying a policy that covers flood.
Now, insurance polices are very hard to understand if you have no background or knowledge of the insurance field. So a big part of this court battle was the "ambiguous language" of the policy. This may have been true to the publics eye, but to the insurance company they know exactly what they are writing or exactly how to write ambiguously. And again, this rules in favor of the insurance company. If this had ruled against the insurance companies, they would have probably gone bankrupt and not be able to provide coverage for all the other people that have different lines of insurance with them, such as auto insurance. No insurance company has this huge bank that sits with all the monthly payments you make for your auto policy. No, it goes directly to other people that are currently making claims on damages, commissions, fees, and other costs of the insurance company. So to have a multi billion dollar hit would completely inialate an insurance company. Especially the smaller ones.
Currently since the events of Katrina, the insurance company I work for does not even sell flood or homeowners policies along the coastline anymore. We start accepting policies starting in Houston, which is about 50 miles from the coast. Many insurance companies are doing this to avoid potential massive claims and lawsuits just like this article.
Now I feel bad for these people who didn't understand their insurance policies or just plain lack of knowledge on their part that they cannot receive money for their house. But insurance policies are put in place to cover certain acts and damage, but not all. For instance insurance policies exclude act of terrorism and damage from a war. If this was to be covered and paid out, insurance companies under a normal policy would not have enough money to literally rebuild a whole city out of an act of terrorism. I completely agree with the courts ruling, but I am at the same time sad for each and every victim of Katrina.
Some measures you can take is to make certain your homeowners or commercial property coverage is in force and that it provides adequate coverage to pay the full replacement cost of your property. Make sure you understand what the policy does and does not cover. If you have questions regarding the terms or coverage provided under the policy, contact your agent. If you’ve made improvements to your home, consider increasing your policy’s limits to cover the enhanced value of the property. Even without recent improvements, property values increase over time and insurance policies should be adjusted accordingly.
If your property is located in one of Texas’ 14 coastal counties, or parts of southeastern Harris County, your homeowners policy may not provide windstorm coverage. You may be able to obtain insurance coverage for windstorm or hail damage from a special insurance pool, contact your agent to inquire about this coverage.
The whole purpose for all this explanation, is people immediately blame the insurance companies, but do not take the time to read their policy, or even think how any company could afford such damages. And in this selection, I was glad to dare to think differently and look at a different side- the insurance company's side.
To read more on the original article please go to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/K/KATRINA_INSURANCE?SITE=TXSAE&SECTION=BUSINESS&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Thursday, July 26
Beef-or who knows- is what's for dinner
Did you know that the vast majority of food coming from other countries to the US ends up on our dinner plates unexamined and untested. A report that was released Wednesday by the Washington-based nonprofit Public Citizen and echoed at a news conference at an East Austin organic farm said the Food and Drug Administration estimates that it will inspect six-tenths of 1 percent of food imports this year. That is down from 8 percent prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization agreements of the mid-1990's.
Only 80 percent of the seafood Americans eat that is imported, the FDA only inspected 1.93 percent in 2006. Eleven percent of beef, pork, and chicken that has been imported is inspected by the U.S. Dept of Agriculture. Even Japan and Europe inspect a much larger percentage of high-risk imports. In other words, imports that come great distances and over seas. The amount of dollars going to the FDA to fund these inspections has remained the same even though imports are growing.
When I read this article, these statistics were very startling. Now given, my fist defense playing devils advocate was that we can't inspect every single piece of food coming in from the deep. But however these percentages of food beings inspected is extreemely small compared to how much food we really get. The one statement that really got me thinking was the funding for the FDA. If imports are growing every year, then only common sense would tell you that they need more funding to manage the increase. This is yours and my health we are talking about here. Some say until this thing is figured out, to buy locally from your local farmers market. If every single person reading this article were to be just as appalled as I was and took this advice to heart, then the markets would overflow. The demand would be too high. This is an issue that affects every single person that goes out to a restaurant and loves to enjoy a great seafood or steak dinner.
For more information, click on the full article: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/26/0726foodsafety.html
Only 80 percent of the seafood Americans eat that is imported, the FDA only inspected 1.93 percent in 2006. Eleven percent of beef, pork, and chicken that has been imported is inspected by the U.S. Dept of Agriculture. Even Japan and Europe inspect a much larger percentage of high-risk imports. In other words, imports that come great distances and over seas. The amount of dollars going to the FDA to fund these inspections has remained the same even though imports are growing.
When I read this article, these statistics were very startling. Now given, my fist defense playing devils advocate was that we can't inspect every single piece of food coming in from the deep. But however these percentages of food beings inspected is extreemely small compared to how much food we really get. The one statement that really got me thinking was the funding for the FDA. If imports are growing every year, then only common sense would tell you that they need more funding to manage the increase. This is yours and my health we are talking about here. Some say until this thing is figured out, to buy locally from your local farmers market. If every single person reading this article were to be just as appalled as I was and took this advice to heart, then the markets would overflow. The demand would be too high. This is an issue that affects every single person that goes out to a restaurant and loves to enjoy a great seafood or steak dinner.
For more information, click on the full article: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/07/26/0726foodsafety.html
Saturday, July 14
Know who REALLY lives in your neighborhood
The Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment is expected this week to change their system in which they classify sex offenders. Officials say that this new system will gauge thier risk to communities better. Critics say that the current test can be misleading and can over penalize young low level offenders and overlook more dangerous offenders.
I don't know why the current test has stayed the same for so long. Why didn't they think of a way to fix this sooner? For families this is a very important factor when considering what neighborhood to move to. Dangerous offenders being overlooked is a huge deal, not something to be on a list of things to fix. The purpose of our judicial and punishment system to make sure that offenders of any kind do not make the same mistake twice and are punished for what they did. Part of the punishment is making their crimes public when they move somewhere. And for a more dangerous offender slips through the cracks kinda gets him off the hook. But thankfully, this is actually happening. This change, will be greatly appreciated by all families. And this is something to always keep up with.
To read more about this article, click this link http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/07/03/0703sexoffenders.html
I don't know why the current test has stayed the same for so long. Why didn't they think of a way to fix this sooner? For families this is a very important factor when considering what neighborhood to move to. Dangerous offenders being overlooked is a huge deal, not something to be on a list of things to fix. The purpose of our judicial and punishment system to make sure that offenders of any kind do not make the same mistake twice and are punished for what they did. Part of the punishment is making their crimes public when they move somewhere. And for a more dangerous offender slips through the cracks kinda gets him off the hook. But thankfully, this is actually happening. This change, will be greatly appreciated by all families. And this is something to always keep up with.
To read more about this article, click this link http://www.statesman.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/07/03/0703sexoffenders.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
