Add it to the flood policy! Cat 2 storms or higher, and Earthquakes. Let private insurers take the smaller storms and tornados. Actuarily charge for the earthquake and hurricane Cat Claims. Finally some solution.
I struggle with the idea that the feds have to be involved. Personally, I don’t think the government – at any level – should be involved in the business of insurance. Private insurers and reinsurers should be able to take the load; if they can’t, then a free market economy will take the appropriate business decisions. Other than the military and essential police and fires services, there is damned little that the government has proven they can do better than the private sector.
I like Bills ideas. But Bob is saying it like it is, they will find a way to make it into yet another wealth redistribution model like everything else they do. Look how well Social Security went. We only have the propblems that we have with it, cuz they used it as a Fund-all.
Well, Bill’s idea sounds good on the surface, although I would have suggested Cat 3 or higher …were I inclined to make the suggestion. The problem is exactly as bob points out, and momma echoes.
It’s simply not the governments job.
Ok, I live in the vicinity of hurricanes, just SW of Houston, so this is not a selfish opinon. But, why should Joe-taxpayer in the Midwest need to subsidize my hurricane insurance …and that’s what it is – a subsidy.
Read the constitution, and learn what the Federal Government’s job truly should be. Anything more is not only an incorrect use of power, but as we all really know (those of us that can actually think), it’s nearly doomed to failure, and worse, open to fraud and co-mingling like Soc Security.
Both sides of the political isle are doing nothing but pandering here. It’s a feel-good move, because something ought to be done. Well, it shouldn’t!
Ok, now that’s the real deal.
But, let me say this as a slightly less strict opinion. The flood program might be a little bit different. It can flood (mudslide) darn near anywhere in the country if it rains hard & long enough. So, maybe that’s something where the Federal Government should possibly insert themselves (let me hold my nose). Except for a few cases, it’s an unforseen disaster.
But if you are going to build a home on top of the San Andreas fault, or in New Orleans (a hole where you need a ladder to see if there are white caps on the Gulf, or position your beach house 500 feet from the coast to get that awesome view, then you should know it’s a risky proposition and you might get burned.
Forseeable disaster should be a risk born by the individual taker. Buy insurance. If you can’t afford insurance and you still want the awesome ambiance, risk it. But, don’t make me pay for your risky behavior via a mandatory Federal program.
The only reason this issue is getting any traction by most legislators is a combination of greed (the ability to use that money for other purposes) and insurance company lobbyist activity, because the companys no longer believe they are in the business of risk. Every insurance company, today, is in search of riskless income. They should have been bankers …but, then they would not have made nearly as much money.
THE FEDS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE IN FLOOD INSURANCE! WHEN BUYING A HOME, A PERSON NEEDS TO SEE WHAT (IF ANY) INSURANCE IS AVAILABLE, AND AT WHAT COST. BUYING A HOME SHOULD BE STRICTLY A FREE-ENTERPRISE DECISION!
If the feds take the RISK out of insurance by handling “NATURAL DISASTERS” there would be no need for UNDERWRITING or SPREADING OF THE RISK, OR… the need for more than ONE insurance company named STATE FARM that would use their Homeowerners Line as a “LOSS LEADER” just to get to the more profitable lines of AUTO & LIFE. Indeed, State Farm would offer this LESS RISKY homeonwers policy for FREE, as long as the auto was inclued, or INCLUDE the DILUTED homeowners coverage along with the Auto Line. They’ll call it a “PAPP” Personal Auto and Property Policy.
We have a thriving and competitive homeonwers insurance market in Florida, there a many more insurance companies finding safer and more well protected homes to insure, FOR LOWER PREMIUMS. However, the average homeonwerr can not expect to pay $300 per year for upwards of $500,000 Total Insured Value, with Dwelling, Contents & Loss of Use, which is what State Farm charged prior to Hurricane Andrew, when they were “Buying Market Share”… The current price would be around $2000/year WHICH MAKES PERFECT ACTUARIAL SENSE.
SOCIALIZED HEALTH INSURANCE, SOCIALIZED PROPERTY INSURANCE. Most people can’t afford or fail to buy LIFE INSURNACE, lets do that too, lets just GO TOTALLY SOCIAL and turn it all over to THE GOVERNMENT.
People seem to forget that the reason the NFIP came about in the first place was to require people to buy flood insurance in advance so they wouldn’t need to look to the government for low-interest loans or grants after the fact. The Flood Act puts teeth to the requirement by forcing lenders to make borrowers have flood insurance, or the lenders are fined. It doesn’t apply to everyone, since not all property owners have mortgages — but most do.
The problem is that the NFIP became an alternative market at non-actuarial rates, making commercial insurers uncompetitive and enabling them to shy away from the risk. If the government wants to make meaningful reform, they ought to require CAT coverage for properties that are at risk, impose the obligation on the lenders as they already do with flood cover, but also mandate that the commercial markets provide the coverage and disband the NFIP. Maybe keep the NFIP running for current owners of primary residences, but cut it off when ownership changes. Yes, this may cause some insurers to withdraw from at-risk areas. Yes, it is likely to cause premiums to increase. That is appropriate. Ultimately this will cause people to own or build in areas that are less at risk, or build better damage-resistant structures, or buy in those areas only if they can truly afford the costs of being there. The government should not be the ultimate backstop in perpetuity.
Well, I’m glad most of us get it. We do NOT live in a Socialist country. We live in a FREE country. You are free to build your home anywhere you like. Just don’t expect the government to bail you out. It’s NOT thier job.
The reason the NFIP came about IS the problem. Again, it was NOT the Federal gov’ments job.
Old Webster is re-running the typical Socialist’s mantra …the reason Socialism hasn’t worked so far is because it wasn’t done properly. Well, Webster, here’s a news flash – IT NEVER WILL. It’s a flawed concept.
Oh …and, if I’m wrong about Webster, I apologize. He seems to argue both ways in this post. Some might say, typically liberal/socialist. Ha!
Ok, who here actually thinks that any money tucked away into this Cat fund will actually be there when it is needed? It will be just like Social Security…robbed to pay pet projects. There is no such thing in Washington called saving for a rainy (stormy) day.
Spend now and tax the future. Its the American Way!
They dont have hurricanes in Alaska, what are you people talking about? Im too busy learning where Iraq is to know anything about these domestic issues.
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.
Add it to the flood policy! Cat 2 storms or higher, and Earthquakes. Let private insurers take the smaller storms and tornados. Actuarily charge for the earthquake and hurricane Cat Claims. Finally some solution.
I struggle with the idea that the feds have to be involved. Personally, I don’t think the government – at any level – should be involved in the business of insurance. Private insurers and reinsurers should be able to take the load; if they can’t, then a free market economy will take the appropriate business decisions. Other than the military and essential police and fires services, there is damned little that the government has proven they can do better than the private sector.
I like Bills ideas. But Bob is saying it like it is, they will find a way to make it into yet another wealth redistribution model like everything else they do. Look how well Social Security went. We only have the propblems that we have with it, cuz they used it as a Fund-all.
Well, Bill’s idea sounds good on the surface, although I would have suggested Cat 3 or higher …were I inclined to make the suggestion. The problem is exactly as bob points out, and momma echoes.
It’s simply not the governments job.
Ok, I live in the vicinity of hurricanes, just SW of Houston, so this is not a selfish opinon. But, why should Joe-taxpayer in the Midwest need to subsidize my hurricane insurance …and that’s what it is – a subsidy.
Read the constitution, and learn what the Federal Government’s job truly should be. Anything more is not only an incorrect use of power, but as we all really know (those of us that can actually think), it’s nearly doomed to failure, and worse, open to fraud and co-mingling like Soc Security.
Both sides of the political isle are doing nothing but pandering here. It’s a feel-good move, because something ought to be done. Well, it shouldn’t!
Ok, now that’s the real deal.
But, let me say this as a slightly less strict opinion. The flood program might be a little bit different. It can flood (mudslide) darn near anywhere in the country if it rains hard & long enough. So, maybe that’s something where the Federal Government should possibly insert themselves (let me hold my nose). Except for a few cases, it’s an unforseen disaster.
But if you are going to build a home on top of the San Andreas fault, or in New Orleans (a hole where you need a ladder to see if there are white caps on the Gulf, or position your beach house 500 feet from the coast to get that awesome view, then you should know it’s a risky proposition and you might get burned.
Forseeable disaster should be a risk born by the individual taker. Buy insurance. If you can’t afford insurance and you still want the awesome ambiance, risk it. But, don’t make me pay for your risky behavior via a mandatory Federal program.
The only reason this issue is getting any traction by most legislators is a combination of greed (the ability to use that money for other purposes) and insurance company lobbyist activity, because the companys no longer believe they are in the business of risk. Every insurance company, today, is in search of riskless income. They should have been bankers …but, then they would not have made nearly as much money.
Thank you very much.
THE FEDS SHOULD NOT EVEN BE IN FLOOD INSURANCE! WHEN BUYING A HOME, A PERSON NEEDS TO SEE WHAT (IF ANY) INSURANCE IS AVAILABLE, AND AT WHAT COST. BUYING A HOME SHOULD BE STRICTLY A FREE-ENTERPRISE DECISION!
If the feds take the RISK out of insurance by handling “NATURAL DISASTERS” there would be no need for UNDERWRITING or SPREADING OF THE RISK, OR… the need for more than ONE insurance company named STATE FARM that would use their Homeowerners Line as a “LOSS LEADER” just to get to the more profitable lines of AUTO & LIFE. Indeed, State Farm would offer this LESS RISKY homeonwers policy for FREE, as long as the auto was inclued, or INCLUDE the DILUTED homeowners coverage along with the Auto Line. They’ll call it a “PAPP” Personal Auto and Property Policy.
We have a thriving and competitive homeonwers insurance market in Florida, there a many more insurance companies finding safer and more well protected homes to insure, FOR LOWER PREMIUMS. However, the average homeonwerr can not expect to pay $300 per year for upwards of $500,000 Total Insured Value, with Dwelling, Contents & Loss of Use, which is what State Farm charged prior to Hurricane Andrew, when they were “Buying Market Share”… The current price would be around $2000/year WHICH MAKES PERFECT ACTUARIAL SENSE.
SOCIALIZED HEALTH INSURANCE, SOCIALIZED PROPERTY INSURANCE. Most people can’t afford or fail to buy LIFE INSURNACE, lets do that too, lets just GO TOTALLY SOCIAL and turn it all over to THE GOVERNMENT.
Where’s my CHEESE.
People seem to forget that the reason the NFIP came about in the first place was to require people to buy flood insurance in advance so they wouldn’t need to look to the government for low-interest loans or grants after the fact. The Flood Act puts teeth to the requirement by forcing lenders to make borrowers have flood insurance, or the lenders are fined. It doesn’t apply to everyone, since not all property owners have mortgages — but most do.
The problem is that the NFIP became an alternative market at non-actuarial rates, making commercial insurers uncompetitive and enabling them to shy away from the risk. If the government wants to make meaningful reform, they ought to require CAT coverage for properties that are at risk, impose the obligation on the lenders as they already do with flood cover, but also mandate that the commercial markets provide the coverage and disband the NFIP. Maybe keep the NFIP running for current owners of primary residences, but cut it off when ownership changes. Yes, this may cause some insurers to withdraw from at-risk areas. Yes, it is likely to cause premiums to increase. That is appropriate. Ultimately this will cause people to own or build in areas that are less at risk, or build better damage-resistant structures, or buy in those areas only if they can truly afford the costs of being there. The government should not be the ultimate backstop in perpetuity.
Well, I’m glad most of us get it. We do NOT live in a Socialist country. We live in a FREE country. You are free to build your home anywhere you like. Just don’t expect the government to bail you out. It’s NOT thier job.
The reason the NFIP came about IS the problem. Again, it was NOT the Federal gov’ments job.
Old Webster is re-running the typical Socialist’s mantra …the reason Socialism hasn’t worked so far is because it wasn’t done properly. Well, Webster, here’s a news flash – IT NEVER WILL. It’s a flawed concept.
Oh …and, if I’m wrong about Webster, I apologize. He seems to argue both ways in this post. Some might say, typically liberal/socialist. Ha!
Have a great day,
Ok, who here actually thinks that any money tucked away into this Cat fund will actually be there when it is needed? It will be just like Social Security…robbed to pay pet projects. There is no such thing in Washington called saving for a rainy (stormy) day.
Spend now and tax the future. Its the American Way!
They dont have hurricanes in Alaska, what are you people talking about? Im too busy learning where Iraq is to know anything about these domestic issues.