James found that the cost of her medical care went up dramatically. “My health insurance at the time would only let you use your insurance to get medication if you got it through the mail,” she remembers. But she and her husband didn’t have a permanent address for months after the storm.
“We didn’t have the mail! And they wouldn’t make an exception, so I had to pay out of pocket for things at the pharmacy,” she says.
This is just ignorance. General delivery works great in the US.
But, of course, better funding for social workers would go a long way in informing folks of how to do things like this
yeah i think this example is more about how US healthcare preys on those without the resources to research or understand their coverage.
Surely it’s bad for the home owner and the renter, but wouldn’t it be worse for the home owner?
The whole point of renting is that displacement isnt a big deal.
It surely is a big deal. You’re ignoring the “having to find another place to live” part. When you have no place to go and no plan or agreement in place to be somewhere else, it can feel very isolating and hopeless because you lack stability. If you’re low income, BIPOC, LGBTQ+, or disabled, good luck finding a place easily. The article itself even mentions that there was higher competition for rentals nearby after a severe weather catastrophe.
Sure, as a homeowner you have to eat the cost of repairs, and often times you’re required to carry insurance on a property, so there’s some coverage and help there, but you can literally pitch a tent on the land and not be bothered or kicked out because you literally own it. Not so easy for a renter.