No apparent wind damage

I was just watching the lobotomy box and a show featuring one of our nationally promoted news muppets discussing the insurance problems faced by so many victims of Rita and Katrina. It would seem that the insurance companies are claiming that most of the damage was caused by flooding, something they just don't cover. So sorry, but thanks for all that money you sent us over the years.

Now I'm not the brightest bulb on the string but it seems to me that the massive storm surges that took out the levees or roared inland for miles was a direct result of the above mentioned hurricanes, and, last time I checked, hurricanes were caused by high wind.

It's high winds that create those storm surges and push them inland. It's high winds that rip roofs off of buildings. It's high winds that strip all the leaves of the trees. It's high winds that drive wheat straws halfway into power poles. It's high winds circulating in a tight pattern referred to as tornadoes, which are so often found in hurricanes.

So it seems to me that the root cause of all that damage from those hurricanes was wind. Should be a no-brainer.

Muppet was interviewing a representative of the insurance industries, who was going on about how the issues were so very complex and would take time, each claim requiring a fully independent investigation as to the causes of the claimed damage. This representative was inferring that your insurance might pay for that torn off roof, but all the damage to your sheetrock walls, your floors, your rugs, your furniture, your yard, your car, well... all that was caused by flooding.

I would certainly agree that "flood damage" caused by heavy rain upriver rushing down the Mississippi and flooding out entire communities is actually "flood damage". A downriver community (having been stupidly built in a flood plain) could actually be wiped out by a flood on a sunny, bright and calm day. More than a bit of irony there.

Why does an insurance company not provide flood damage as part of your protection? Because they lobbied congress to pass laws that says they are not required to. They claim that flood coverage is just to expensive and must be provided by the government, another lobbying victory compliments of our very own congress.

We could quickly reduce the cost of flood insurance for all of us by refusing to insure structures built in flood plains or below sea level, and then not put the burden of insurance onto the tax payer to foot the bill for damages on structures so built.

People who insist on building in flood plains or below sea level should be required to sign a waiver for any insurance -- private or public -- for flood damages on whatever structure they may build. A bit of responsibility here would go a long way.

It looks and sounds to me that Americans in distress are getting shafted once again, this time by the insurance companies protected by our very own congress from their responsibilities as insurers and from loss or legal retribution. Those Americans who were not harmed by these hurricanes will still be shafted by our very own government, because they will forced by law to pick up the tab.

How much longer are we going to put up with stuff like this?

Just asking.