archduke
He isn't criticizing the location in which they live but the lack of insurance
I think what he's doing is offering a seemingly simple solution for what is actually a complex problem. (Typically Libertarian.)
To say that either moving or having insurance is a solution assumes a lot of things that may not be in evidence.
And with most simple solutions that havn't considered all the ramifications it will fail with audiences who know more about the problem.
Based on what I think I know, Arch, (and I'm open to being corrected) there are places in the US where flood, hurricane or tornado insurance is no longer widely available. And where it is extremelly expensive. And yet, doesn't the economy need people to live and work in those regions? Aren't there vital agricultural or industrial sectors in many of these regions?
If all the people in those regions just moved what would happen to those industries?
Obama may be doing something similar. But not the same. The replacement of a gas guzzler for a gas thrifty car is a reasonable solution for many individuals, and can be undertaken . The presence of a vehicle shows that a purchase decision was made. And therefore a different decision could be made. More importantly, the gas cost is an ongoing problem that hits at pocket books weekly.
A tornadoe is a one time disaster . People who didn't have insurance may have balanced the ability to feed the family over the chance of disaster. OR they may have had no real choice if insurance was simply out of reach.
Obama can get away with the offer of the simple solution as its reasonable within the context of consumer choices. Paul can't because it presupposes that conditions existed for all to have insurance. And because, after its happened, telling someone what they should have done is rather heartless. Whereas Obama is simply telling a consumer that he continues to have a choice of transportation.