Posted On: June 19, 2008, 3:54 pm CDT

Posted By: Ralph

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.