how is it that you can take premium dollars from private insurance companies to establish a cat fund and somehow that will lower the rates? certainly it will help those in disaster prone areas. but, reduce rates. i dont think so. what color are the trees in the world these folks live in? the other scary part is that the fund would be federally managed.
Sounds to me like states that have catastrophes perennially are pushing this thing. Pass their costs onto others. I think this maybe another case of responsibility avoidence. You want to live in an area prone to catastrophes, deal with it. Why would any state that rarely has a catastrophe (and with many of these states it is far less significant when they do)want to buy into this idiotic plan. You notice (I believe) the article only indicates that it would reduce rates in areas that are catastrophe prone. Of course, because the other poor folks living in safe areas will be providing subsidies through their higher rates.
Here’s a scary thought. Once you get this thing into place how long before the states attempt to redefine what a disaster is?
Look, we have potential disasters in each region of the US: flooding in major river areas, volcanic and seismic activity in the west, hurricanes on coastal exposures, blizzard conditions in the north, tornado alley, etc. Heck, we even have a major, although relatively dormant, fault line that runs through Tennessee. On top of that add any of the man made disasters that could occur throughout the US, whether industrial accident or terrorist activity. Disaster coverage could be pooled, but then how would you apportion distribution of funds? And why would you give the gov’t management responsibility over the whole thing? Surely they have shown an ineptitude in managing major financial funds (as in health care, social security, the deficit…)
Here’s what needs to happen. Let the industry design insurance programs that are tailored to the risk that an individual state can decide to participate in or not. Products could then be constructed by region so exposure specialization could occur. Heck, you could even set up some sort of PayFlex program equivalent to what we have in the health care system. The carrier sees profits in the form of interest income, the states get the benefit of carry over funds from the prior year if the pool isn’t tapped, and we avoid the gov’t using surpluses as a slush fund for pork barrell politics. Anybody want help building that program?
If I’m an ambitious southern governor whose state economy has been gutted by a loss of coastal construction, real estate transactions and net population (aka tax base) growth, I’m on board with this national catastrophe fund. After all, isn’t politics the art of getting more out of government than you put into it?
What would be truly refreshing is if the Charlie Crist’s of the world would simply come forward and admit to this. Nothing is more disarming than the truth.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
how is it that you can take premium dollars from private insurance companies to establish a cat fund and somehow that will lower the rates? certainly it will help those in disaster prone areas. but, reduce rates. i dont think so. what color are the trees in the world these folks live in? the other scary part is that the fund would be federally managed.
Sounds to me like states that have catastrophes perennially are pushing this thing. Pass their costs onto others. I think this maybe another case of responsibility avoidence. You want to live in an area prone to catastrophes, deal with it. Why would any state that rarely has a catastrophe (and with many of these states it is far less significant when they do)want to buy into this idiotic plan. You notice (I believe) the article only indicates that it would reduce rates in areas that are catastrophe prone. Of course, because the other poor folks living in safe areas will be providing subsidies through their higher rates.
Here’s a scary thought. Once you get this thing into place how long before the states attempt to redefine what a disaster is?
Look, we have potential disasters in each region of the US: flooding in major river areas, volcanic and seismic activity in the west, hurricanes on coastal exposures, blizzard conditions in the north, tornado alley, etc. Heck, we even have a major, although relatively dormant, fault line that runs through Tennessee. On top of that add any of the man made disasters that could occur throughout the US, whether industrial accident or terrorist activity. Disaster coverage could be pooled, but then how would you apportion distribution of funds? And why would you give the gov’t management responsibility over the whole thing? Surely they have shown an ineptitude in managing major financial funds (as in health care, social security, the deficit…)
Here’s what needs to happen. Let the industry design insurance programs that are tailored to the risk that an individual state can decide to participate in or not. Products could then be constructed by region so exposure specialization could occur. Heck, you could even set up some sort of PayFlex program equivalent to what we have in the health care system. The carrier sees profits in the form of interest income, the states get the benefit of carry over funds from the prior year if the pool isn’t tapped, and we avoid the gov’t using surpluses as a slush fund for pork barrell politics. Anybody want help building that program?
If I’m an ambitious southern governor whose state economy has been gutted by a loss of coastal construction, real estate transactions and net population (aka tax base) growth, I’m on board with this national catastrophe fund. After all, isn’t politics the art of getting more out of government than you put into it?
What would be truly refreshing is if the Charlie Crist’s of the world would simply come forward and admit to this. Nothing is more disarming than the truth.