This op-ed underscores that the current approach to protecting America from natural disaster is deficient and must be improved. The author confirms the need for a national catastrophe solution and we agree the best approach must leverage both the private and public sectors at the local, state and national levels to better prepare and protect us from catastrophes.
Our nation’s exposure to natural catastrophes continues to grow, and the stakes are higher than ever. Unfortunately, the four proposals suggested in the op-ed would not make a significant enough dent in addressing the problem. The current system of government response is overly reactive and relies upon taxpayer funded bailouts. It also leaves state programs overextended in their attempts to solve a problem that neither private markets nor local governments can solve alone.
A comprehensive, integrated approach that would pre-fund the response to the financial costs of large-scale natural catastrophes is the only fiscally sustainable solution in our current budgetary environment.
The system would build a privately-financed national catastrophe fund at the national level as part of a comprehensive catastrophe management program that includes robust participation from the private market and voluntary participation by state and regional programs meeting strict financial standards of actuarial soundness.
This approach would leverage private sector dollars to strengthen America’s financial and preparedness infrastructure rather than relying on taxpayer-funded bailouts to deal with mega catastrophes.
There are many changes to the current catastrophe response system that would improve protection and reduce costs. But ultimately a national program that leverages the private and public sectors is needed to better prepare and protect America from major catastrophe.
Bradley S. Brewster, Washington
Executive Director
ProtectingAmerica.org
The July 17th op-ed titled “Yes, Of Course We Do Need a National Catastrophe Solution” underscores that the current approach to protecting America from natural disaster is deficient and must be improved. The author confirms the need for a national catastrophe solution and we agree the best approach must leverage both the private and public sectors at the local, state and national levels to better prepare and protect us from catastrophes.
Our nation’s exposure to natural catastrophes continues to grow, and the stakes are higher than ever. Unfortunately, the four proposals suggested in the op-ed would not make a significant enough dent in addressing the problem. The current system of government response is overly reactive and relies upon taxpayer funded bailouts. It also leaves state programs overextended in their attempts to solve a problem that neither private markets nor local governments can solve alone.
A comprehensive, integrated approach that would pre-fund the response to the financial costs of large-scale natural catastrophes is the only fiscally sustainable solution in our current budgetary environment.
The system would build a privately-financed national catastrophe fund at the national level as part of a comprehensive catastrophe management program that includes robust participation from the private market and voluntary participation by state and regional programs meeting strict financial standards of actuarial soundness.
This approach would leverage private sector dollars to strengthen America’s financial and preparedness infrastructure rather than relying on taxpayer-funded bailouts to deal with mega catastrophes.
There are many changes to the current catastrophe response system that would improve protection and reduce costs. But ultimately a national program that leverages the private and public sectors is needed to better prepare and protect America from major catastrophe.
Bradley S. Brewster, Washington
Executive Director
ProtectingAmerica.org
This op-ed underscores that the current approach to protecting America from natural disaster is deficient and must be improved. The author confirms the need for a national catastrophe solution and we agree the best approach must leverage both the private and public sectors at the local, state and national levels to better prepare and protect us from catastrophes.
Our nation’s exposure to natural catastrophes continues to grow, and the stakes are higher than ever. Unfortunately, the four proposals suggested in the op-ed would not make a significant enough dent in addressing the problem. The current system of government response is overly reactive and relies upon taxpayer funded bailouts. It also leaves state programs overextended in their attempts to solve a problem that neither private markets nor local governments can solve alone.
A comprehensive, integrated approach that would pre-fund the response to the financial costs of large-scale natural catastrophes is the only fiscally sustainable solution in our current budgetary environment.
The system would build a privately-financed national catastrophe fund at the national level as part of a comprehensive catastrophe management program that includes robust participation from the private market and voluntary participation by state and regional programs meeting strict financial standards of actuarial soundness.
This approach would leverage private sector dollars to strengthen America’s financial and preparedness infrastructure rather than relying on taxpayer-funded bailouts to deal with mega catastrophes.
There are many changes to the current catastrophe response system that would improve protection and reduce costs. But ultimately a national program that leverages the private and public sectors is needed to better prepare and protect America from major catastrophe.
Bradley S. Brewster, Washington
Executive Director
ProtectingAmerica.org
The July 17th op-ed titled “Yes, Of Course We Do Need a National Catastrophe Solution” underscores that the current approach to protecting America from natural disaster is deficient and must be improved. The author confirms the need for a national catastrophe solution and we agree the best approach must leverage both the private and public sectors at the local, state and national levels to better prepare and protect us from catastrophes.
Our nation’s exposure to natural catastrophes continues to grow, and the stakes are higher than ever. Unfortunately, the four proposals suggested in the op-ed would not make a significant enough dent in addressing the problem. The current system of government response is overly reactive and relies upon taxpayer funded bailouts. It also leaves state programs overextended in their attempts to solve a problem that neither private markets nor local governments can solve alone.
A comprehensive, integrated approach that would pre-fund the response to the financial costs of large-scale natural catastrophes is the only fiscally sustainable solution in our current budgetary environment.
The system would build a privately-financed national catastrophe fund at the national level as part of a comprehensive catastrophe management program that includes robust participation from the private market and voluntary participation by state and regional programs meeting strict financial standards of actuarial soundness.
This approach would leverage private sector dollars to strengthen America’s financial and preparedness infrastructure rather than relying on taxpayer-funded bailouts to deal with mega catastrophes.
There are many changes to the current catastrophe response system that would improve protection and reduce costs. But ultimately a national program that leverages the private and public sectors is needed to better prepare and protect America from major catastrophe.
Bradley S. Brewster, Washington
Executive Director
ProtectingAmerica.org