On the weekend Christchurch was pretty devastated by a 7.1 earthquake and a massive number of aftershocks (sidenote: good graphic here of the aftershocks)
Interesting reading the responses to this blog post which questions whether uninsured people should get aid from the government or other funds. There's plenty of discussion from a range of positions about the potential response. They range from 'they should have had insurance, too bad for them' to 'help them out, it's too big an event to quibble about what they should have done'.
I appreciate the point that people can't just not get insurance and expect the government to bail them out when disaster strikes, but I couldn't countenance just letting people cope.
Here's the thing though - on the blog post there was a fairly strong trend towards 'help them get back on their feet, but don't pay for luxuries like a flat-screen tv'. Another comment suggested that 'broadband and Sky' were things that shouldn't be paid for via government assistance.
It just makes me wonder, what's a basic need, and what's a luxury? I agree that people could live without Sky - but broadband? If you've got kids who 'need' the internet for their homework, surely dialup is cruel and unusual punishment? And maybe they don't need Sky, but most houses in NZ have tvs for at least the free to air channels - is that a luxury?
We have insurance (although I'm thinking we should check if we have enough) but I wonder, if it came down to it, what we would *need*, as opposed to things that simply make life that bit simpler.
(Picture from stuff.co.nz - Kaiapoi after the Canterbury earthquake)
No comments:
Post a Comment