Study: Homeowners Could Save $11.6 Billion with Catastrophe Protections

May 24, 2007

  • May 24, 2007 at 1:55 am
    Bozo the Actuary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What a ridiculous and moronic header. How does a person that chooses to live in a prudent and non disaster prone are not subject to flooding, coastal wind or EQ (there are such places believe it or not) save money?

    Title it like it should. Non cat prone area residents can subsidize cat areas through a national pool so the cat prone area residents can live more comfortably by sponging off the rest of the US.

  • May 24, 2007 at 2:11 am
    Waiting says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And when has any scheme like this worked in the past? Actuary has it right on the money (yes, I know) about subsidies!

  • May 24, 2007 at 2:16 am
    Kate says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You need to re-read the last paragraph of the article.

  • May 24, 2007 at 2:20 am
    AMEN BOZO says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Backed by a \”national program\” Where the heck do they think they are going to get the money????

    That’s okay John Q Public doesn’t mind funding this idea through the nose (I mean by paying our taxes) while living and working in areas that are not subject to the same exposures.

    For those who choose (and yes Virginia…everyone has a choice) to live in these areas they need to face it – We\’re tired of paying them to continue to bleed us dry!!!

    Give me a break – like this is going to solve anyone\’s problem. What makes these bleeding heart idiots think it is a god given right to expect everyone else to pick up the slack because these people want oceanfront property? If you lose your property because you live in an area where (are you listening coastal residents!!!) you should foot your own bills if you want to continue to live there

    If you’re affluent enough to own the property — I am sure you are more than capable of paying to rebuild. (And for those who are poor enough that they can\’t – they\’re probably all on welfare anyway so we\’re getting it twice!)

    I\’m tired of busting my butt to pay taxes to support everyone else’s ignorance

    There is no longer morale or personal responsibility in this country – it makes me shake my head every time I read another article that exposes another idiotic decision made on the Hill

  • May 24, 2007 at 2:23 am
    Mike Harcourt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Few examples of the whole degradation of our morals and ethics are more obvios than this sham. These people have little or no shame. Trying to push a subsidy scheme on the rest of the US is bad enough but to pass it off as \”savings\” just shows how far these gutless politicians will go to appease there constituents.

    America was built of the idea of personal liberty and responsibility. It\’s great that these people want to live in hurricane prone areas, flood zones and EQ active areas. Thats their choice and they have that right. They don\’t have the right to ask me to pay for that privilege. In the past most people would have been ashamed to push their own little private agenda off on everyone else. Now it a badge of honor that they found some greedy and self serving actuarial firm to push there scheme on to others.

    I don\’t know which is worse. The shameless crooks that want everyone else to pay for their costs or the actuarial firm that conjures up this snake oil plan and passes it off as \”savings\”.

  • May 24, 2007 at 2:26 am
    FL agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Like the rest of you, I dislike the idea of a national cat fund for all the reasons mentioned. Further, I want a lot less of government, not more. Every time Gov. Crist finds a TV camera, he digs us a bigger hole.

    Aside from the obvious socialist tendencies and forced subsidy of coastal residents, this is still a bad idea for other reasons. With pricing so high now, it\’s finally dawned on us that we need to build much stronger structures, plan better for disaster, and reconsider building frame structures right in the surf line. Let\’s allow the market to work, folks. It will settle back to equilibrium once the boys in Tallahassee get their noses out of it.

  • May 24, 2007 at 2:37 am
    Anne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And who do you think backs the \”National Flood Insurance Program\”?

  • May 24, 2007 at 3:32 am
    Spock says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why does legislation that always seems to benefit a few and certianly encourages unsound development or business practices alway come from Florida or Calfornia?

    I think it might have something to do with the quality of their elected officials. Garbage in, Garbage out.

  • May 24, 2007 at 3:32 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The same people who are funding NFIP would be funding this sort of program. And who doesn\’t think major changes should be made in the flood program?
    Why do we want to encourage anyone to build in areas that probably should not ever be built in? If you want to live there, expect to pay for your own insurance.

  • May 31, 2007 at 7:30 am
    John Glenn, MBCI says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am a Business Continuity/COOP planner; I know it is LESS expensive to avoid or mitigate a risk (e.g. build *-proof houses in out-of-danger areas, \”*\”= hurricane, tornado, earthquake, etc.). If we must subsidize, let\’s subsidize avoidance & mitigation efforts – and do NOT subsidize or allow (re)building in known risk areas (e.g. beachfront).



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*