Push the Federal Govt to allow the creation of Catastrophe policy due to climate change (LOL)I just thought that would get the earth worshiping tree hugging idiots to fall in line, Include wind in the same policy as flood and throw in earthquake and terrorism for good measure. Let the federal government charge a sound actuarilly sound rate and if the private sector wants to compete with it, so be it. The Feds always have to come to the resue anyway, they might as well get paid for it.
That is the solution for Florida, Texas, California and New York. Now go ahead, add up the electoral college votes involved.
You just about will win the presidential election!
Yep, you’ll just about win the presidential election… for the other guy.
Flood is currently heavily subsidized. People don’t like it when you take their subsidies away. It may be better for the economy and the country to NOT subsidize flood rates, but the thought of being “the guy who cranked up the flood insurance costs” will almost ensure that those subsidies don’t go away.
You are right Flood is heavily subsidized, mostly by Floridians as we put MUCH more into it then we have ever taken out. Funny how that is “OK” but when it comes to insurance there is no such thing as spreading the risk.
What is this about having to rebuild on a property you no longer wish to live on for very good reasons:
1. bad neighbors who will also have to rebuild next to you.
2. flood insurance rates increasing under new flood maps, and wind premiums increasing making it not affordable for many to continue living in their coastal area homes.
3. bad public policy to force homeowners to rebuild in sensitive coastal areas which they probably shouldn’t have built in to begin with.
4. was just planning to leave home or state an move elsewhere, and now find that have to rebuild a home you were recently planning on leaving.
5. this is just a windfall to insurers who require you to insure your home at high rebuild cost rates, which you pay for, but then will find you can’t collect on. Consider the home being rebuilt for much less than the insured replacement cost.
6. this rebuild requirement is one of the most serious government intrusions on individual liberty I have ever witnessed, in telling an individual where he has to continue to live. This requirement of rebuild is probably unconstitutional under the commerce clause and right to travel concepts.
If there is a real concern that homeowners will take the money and run and abandon their property with no clean-up of storm destruction debris this could have been easily addressed by withholding money which could be required for clean-up, if the homeowner decides not to rebuild. Anything else is an elephant gun approach which surely will be an advantage solely to insurers.
“Solely for benefit of insurers” was wrong comment. This also is a big benefit for the construction industry. All we need now is for them to be building more homes that no one wants.
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.
Push the Federal Govt to allow the creation of Catastrophe policy due to climate change (LOL)I just thought that would get the earth worshiping tree hugging idiots to fall in line, Include wind in the same policy as flood and throw in earthquake and terrorism for good measure. Let the federal government charge a sound actuarilly sound rate and if the private sector wants to compete with it, so be it. The Feds always have to come to the resue anyway, they might as well get paid for it.
That is the solution for Florida, Texas, California and New York. Now go ahead, add up the electoral college votes involved.
You just about will win the presidential election!
Yep, you’ll just about win the presidential election… for the other guy.
Flood is currently heavily subsidized. People don’t like it when you take their subsidies away. It may be better for the economy and the country to NOT subsidize flood rates, but the thought of being “the guy who cranked up the flood insurance costs” will almost ensure that those subsidies don’t go away.
You are right Flood is heavily subsidized, mostly by Floridians as we put MUCH more into it then we have ever taken out. Funny how that is “OK” but when it comes to insurance there is no such thing as spreading the risk.
What is this about having to rebuild on a property you no longer wish to live on for very good reasons:
1. bad neighbors who will also have to rebuild next to you.
2. flood insurance rates increasing under new flood maps, and wind premiums increasing making it not affordable for many to continue living in their coastal area homes.
3. bad public policy to force homeowners to rebuild in sensitive coastal areas which they probably shouldn’t have built in to begin with.
4. was just planning to leave home or state an move elsewhere, and now find that have to rebuild a home you were recently planning on leaving.
5. this is just a windfall to insurers who require you to insure your home at high rebuild cost rates, which you pay for, but then will find you can’t collect on. Consider the home being rebuilt for much less than the insured replacement cost.
6. this rebuild requirement is one of the most serious government intrusions on individual liberty I have ever witnessed, in telling an individual where he has to continue to live. This requirement of rebuild is probably unconstitutional under the commerce clause and right to travel concepts.
If there is a real concern that homeowners will take the money and run and abandon their property with no clean-up of storm destruction debris this could have been easily addressed by withholding money which could be required for clean-up, if the homeowner decides not to rebuild. Anything else is an elephant gun approach which surely will be an advantage solely to insurers.
“Solely for benefit of insurers” was wrong comment. This also is a big benefit for the construction industry. All we need now is for them to be building more homes that no one wants.