The tragic earthquake that struck part of Aquila and its province has reopened the debate on whether to require homeowners to ensure the conclusion of an insurance against natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, landslides, etc. ..) The question is revived every time you experience high-profile cases as the latter was the earthquake, not only because of serious losses, but enormous damage to buildings - public and private - both older than those of recent or very recent construction.
course here we do not want to examine the responsibilities, and certainly important to be clarified by the investigations of the judiciary, of those who did not meet earthquake standards that do exist (particularly in areas of high seismic risk such as the Eagle and much of the province) but emphasize the contradictory nature of a measure which, if implemented, would be a way simplistic to solve a problem without any assessment of the general problems and the implications for wider use.
In fact, the compulsory insurance policy, to be able to obtain a practical result as the coverage of a marginal percentage of the value of destroyed or damaged calamitous event, could only be referring to all the owners - of course we take care of the little property represented by those citizens with enormous sacrifices have been able to have their own home - regardless of the degree of risk in the area where the house is constructed and, therefore, a premium unrelated to risk effective and that is not proportional to the possibility that an event occurs. This is because if they had assessed the level of risk we would be in policyholders very low and, conversely, other very high if one were to rely on a fairly large sum to be paid.
Not forgetting the question of the events of alluvial already see that homeowners subject to the payment of "tax" of reclamation that should be given the task to avoid the occurrence of damage to goods and property of citizens except, of course, very exceptional cases because they are often regarded as such even those who are normal but capable of cause tragedies to carelessness and lack of action by the responsible agencies and conservation of rivers and small waterways.
As you can understand we are faced with a decision that has quite a few problems, so it would be appropriate would be evaluated carefully in order to avoid the possibility of appeals by the owners - and their associations - for a 'any compulsory insurance only to make money and without taking into account the special features - only marginally - highlighted in these few lines.
It would be nice if the government deems appropriate to agree the establishment of the policy anti-disaster insurance in line with consumer groups and the construction of the property. It would certainly be a way to implement in the event that this was the intention then, a serious measure, which is shared and therefore acceptable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment