I don't necessarily have an opinion, but would like a dialogue from both the "yes" and "no" camps.

It's occurred to me that every year, generally the highly desirable and higher risk areas get slammed with storms, hurricanes, mudslides, and fires. These locations typically or often are clustered with $1 million + homes, lucrative vacation spots, etc.

Disaster relief efforts to the wealthy in these areas, on top of the subsidized insurance premiums we all pay, get tiresome. Yet these people rebuild in the same areas.

I purposefully choose to live in an area with low natural disaster risk; it's a less desirable location to live but that's okay. Some chose to live in the path of mudslides, hurricanes, regular forest fires, etc. so they can live in gorgeous lush or wonderland locations. Should I continue, year after year, to be fine with subsidizing their vacation lifestyles, homes/locations? It's like continuing to subsidize someone that's irresponsible. A "non-prepper" who comes to your house to borrow food every time there's a shortage. I am more inclined to help the poor or middle class, or the random disaster to those with no alternatives or forewarning. But what about the rich living in resort coastal areas that face this predictable event every year? For example. The rich continue to rebuild in the Florida Keys, or deep in the California forests where there are annual massive fires, or below sea level in the coastal areas of Louisiana, or on earthquake faultlines, and so forth. There's plenty of good open land elsewhere that's not subjected to big expensive predictable disasters. Shouldn't the folks sorta be disqualified from federal bail out money for building in disaster prone areas?

The other side of the coin is that we are all Americans, we band together to fight disaster and support each other (and typically the world in times of disaster). So that's just consistent with Christian values and generosity for fellow Americans, who would do the same for me.

Edited to add: I also recognize the political suicide it would be for a POTUS to ignore suffering here or there. Bush was slayed by the press in spite of it not being his fault that folks in the path of Katrina suffered.

What are your thoughts?

God helps those who help themselves. Guess what? My name isn't God, and you come to me for help, have a nice day (insert door slamming noise).

No, fuck 'em.
They need to buy insurance or find somewhere else to live with a lower risk.
If they can afford the house, they can afford the insurance.
If they rent, they can get renters insurance.

Over half of the FEMA credit cards they handed out after Katrina went to people who had already received one or other fraudsters who weren't even there.

no one is stupid enough to not know that hurricanes hit the southern US states, nor are the dumb enough to think that their mobile home will survive a tornado...these people play the odds, just like we do here. Someday a massive quake will wreck havoc on the PNW, and we will have to live with it. I wouldn't expect New Yorkers or Texans to pay for my damaged goods.

You have to believe that those insurance claims make prices for insurance climb for all.

No, I do not believe tax dollars should be pent on repeated fixes and claims. One and done.

Hate to break it to you but if you live in WA then most parts of the state are at "high risk" due to proximity to one of the most active stratocone (explosive, not gentle like basaltic) volcanos on the planet, Mt. Rainier. If it fully went off the pyroclastic cloud alone could liquify Graham, Orting etc. Pyroclastic missiles would go as far as Seattle or Everett and maybe to the San Juans or Ellensberg.

My two cents. There's very few, if any, 'low risk' areas in the United States:
West Coast - earthquakes & volcanoes. The largest Cascade volcano by volume is in Northern California, the Medicine Lake Volcano (not necessarily most dangerous, that would go to Mt St Helens or Mt Rainier)
Midwest - Tornadoes, lightning and hail
Gulf Coast & Southeast - Tropical storms, hurricanes, tornadoes (in Texas), occasional winter ice storms
Northeast - Nor'easters & harsh winter weather & snow

The whole point of insurance is distributing risk. Presumably those who live in really high risk areas pay a higher premium for insurance. Otherwise, the financial risk is distributed throughout all the policy holders in the US and probably Canada as well given the multi-national nature of most insurance companies.

Starting down the road of quibbling over who really deserves benefits is the path to endless finger pointing and hair splitting given that most regions have substantial natural risks, albeit just different ones.

Government prices flood insurance so low that no one else will write policies for it, so the gov't is subsidizing those 1+ million dollar homes and when a hurricane hits your house your insurance company says.
"hey , look, water caused the problem" and screws you out of your house.

solution, slowly raise government flood insurance rates +5% / year
then, eventually, you will buy flood insurance from the same company you buy your homeowners insurance. Having them split is begging for problems.

THEN people will be truley paying the risk for their homes and you probably won't be seeing 1+ million $ homes next to a sandy beach in hurricane alley

I don't mind helping Americans, but this should be voluntary. What bothers me is the government's selecting winners and losers, and often based on voting districts.

Look at it this way.

If I get cancer, lose my job, lose my insurance, lose my savings, and get foreclosed on and lose my home, nobody is going to bail me out.

Conversely, if I'm a millionaire and build a McMansion in a fire zone or hurricane zone and it burns or washes away, the feds will come in and fix it whist I vacation on my yacht in the Bahamas.

This to me seems really unfair. If we're going to offer bailout money, then we should selected the truly needy or those hit by totally unforeseen catastrophe. Otherwise, we should say tough luck.

What I pray for each and every day is a direct hit to Seattle. A lot problems would be solved there.

And, I suspect my PRIVATELY PAID FOR insurance against fire or damages would cover damages from a destroyed house. I wouldn't expect the rest of America to pay for my house...

So why do we bail out coastal SE/E America every year? Or California forest fire victims? Or folks in Tornado alley?

Which insurance company do you have? If a major quake hits Seattle or Mt Rainier blows there's a good chance a lot of WA insurance companies will go under and not be able to pay out to many or possibly even most of their insured.

Remember, flood, earthquake, eruption, and some other catastrophes are NOT covered by regular homeowners insurance. I had to hire an elevation expert to minimize how much I paid for flood insurance in El Paso (required).

Problem is, the fairness aspect. I've had my share of devastating misfortune and bad luck. I've yet to be bailed out....

So picking winners and losers really isn't something the government should do, because it's inherently unfair.