Isn’t it funny to see the political types dance around the laws they created. Martha, my dear, the FEMA program does limit the amount of flood coverage now $250K. In addition, the FEDS require mortgage lenders to have Flood Insurance in place to protect their loans where needed.
This is what happens when the FEDS impose laws and then try to live by them. Hello Obamacare!!
1. I’ve never seen a bank force anyone to buy contents.
2. Unless you buy the max amount of $250k or at least 80% of the replacment cost value of the home you will be penalized at the time of a claim. Guess we could call the penalty a tax to make the democrats happy.
Obumacareless was written by the same people. See a pattern yet?
Just got an idea, lets force everyone to buy flood coverage to subsidize the high risk homes like Obumacareless forces everyone to buy homeowners to subsidize the preexisting conditions. See a pattern yet?
We already subsidize high risk homes through our taxes. Homeowners pay only a small fraction of the cost of flood insurance, taxpayers pay the rest. Now that an attempt to require homeowners with property in flood zones to pay more of the actual cost, the affected homeowners and their politicians are alarmed. I for one, resent having to subsidize the flood insurance of people who knew what they were getting into when they purchased or built their homes.
I can understand the AG’s concern regarding pricing and how is going to affect residents and businesses in the state, but allowing insureds to under insure isn’t the solution. With this plan the banks are made whole, the homeowner walks away with nothing and the community now has an abandoned property; the only winner is the bank?? That is not helping your community.
Alan- I agree and lets extend the cost to remove the abandoned property. That will go to the tax payer again or if the home is in a homeowners association it will be assessed to the neighborhood. Of course those rich white folk deserve to have to pay it anyway.
How is this supposed to help? The insured will be penalized at the time of claim because they may not have the coverage required. The insured should be paying for what is required, not what politicians think they should.
Here’s a novel idea, let’s do away with FEMA and the Army Corp of Engineers flood mitigation programs let these states do their own thing. They seem to know best. They know better ways to handle their dams, dikes, levies, etc. They also always know how to better handle the claims. They now seem to know better about how to manage, fund and charge for their ppls ins coverage.
I say fine. You are now exempt from any FEMA interaction (including monetary transfers) and may go your merry way.
Has Martha figured out that the flood insurance subsidy being eliminated has encouraged development that threatens the sacred wetlands? Is she against protecting wetlands now?
Maybe its time to transfer the burden of flood risk to the states. Let them develop their own flood insurance programs. They have full control of the building codes that have allowed so much development in at risk areas in the first place. Why should other states have to pay for flooding in another state that has been irresponsible in allowing and even encouraging building in known flood zones?
Please sign this White House petition asking President Obama to fix the mess that FEMA and Congress has made of out flood insurance! http://wh.gov/lT2OU
Why would I sign that, if it’s not risk based rating? The way it’s worded is basically saying that they’re doing everything OK except for the new flood maps that are causing some high risk properties’ premiums to dramatically increase.
What it should ask for is to stop giving tens of millions of $$$ to high value investment condo properties in the form of LOMR(?) exceptions to the new rates in the B/W NFIP bill.
Quite frankly it wouldn’t suprise me if the shell corps that own alot of these properties recieving exceptions aren’t China-controlled investment houses. Let’s face it, they are our single biggest creditor, owning 8% of our debt load.
Who needs a nuclear MAD strategy? Pretty soon we’ll be at their mercy because we won’t have enough of our own money to operate.
This seems like an open invitation to lawsuits against insurance agents who place such limited coverage, leaving the homeowner with no insurance for the remaining value of the home or content or additional living expense. After the flood event, homeowners will seek the balance of the coverage they didn’t buy from the E&O policy of their agent. Mass Agents: make sure you have disclosure and consent forms ready to go if this travesty becomes the law.
Why should any one that is not in a flood zone pay anything towards flood insurance??? I’ll never use it and I have to pay for it??? All them folks that live on the Miss River keep flooding and rebuilding just to go through it again and again.
Everyone is in a flood zone, just depends upon the one you are in. Did you know that there are more flood losses in preferred zones than any other?. And you should really never say you’ll never use it!
I survived the 08/08 floods with out a drop… That was the 100 year high water mark in my neck of the woods. I’ll take my chances. floods that went on in Spring, 2013 survived them too.
“Why should i buy flood ins and never use it?” Hmmmm, why should a 26 year old healthy man be forced to buy health ins to subsidize the drinking,smoking,fat lady with pre-existing conditions that keeps buying lunch at McD’s etc. Wake up people!
You’re right. The 26 year old healthy man shouldn’t be forced to buy health insurance. It should just be provided for him and every other American, for that matter. Including the drinking, smoking, fat lady with pre-existing conditions.
“it should be provided” ??? You mean paid for by someone else right? You do know the government doesn’t make a profit on anything it does right??? You are so compassionate with other peoples money. Typical democrat!
Isn’t it funny to see the political types dance around the laws they created. Martha, my dear, the FEMA program does limit the amount of flood coverage now $250K. In addition, the FEDS require mortgage lenders to have Flood Insurance in place to protect their loans where needed.
This is what happens when the FEDS impose laws and then try to live by them. Hello Obamacare!!
1. I’ve never seen a bank force anyone to buy contents.
2. Unless you buy the max amount of $250k or at least 80% of the replacment cost value of the home you will be penalized at the time of a claim. Guess we could call the penalty a tax to make the democrats happy.
Obumacareless was written by the same people. See a pattern yet?
Heritage Foundation is writing this?
Just got an idea, lets force everyone to buy flood coverage to subsidize the high risk homes like Obumacareless forces everyone to buy homeowners to subsidize the preexisting conditions. See a pattern yet?
correction- to buy health ins to subsidize
We already subsidize high risk homes through our taxes. Homeowners pay only a small fraction of the cost of flood insurance, taxpayers pay the rest. Now that an attempt to require homeowners with property in flood zones to pay more of the actual cost, the affected homeowners and their politicians are alarmed. I for one, resent having to subsidize the flood insurance of people who knew what they were getting into when they purchased or built their homes.
I can understand the AG’s concern regarding pricing and how is going to affect residents and businesses in the state, but allowing insureds to under insure isn’t the solution. With this plan the banks are made whole, the homeowner walks away with nothing and the community now has an abandoned property; the only winner is the bank?? That is not helping your community.
Alan- I agree and lets extend the cost to remove the abandoned property. That will go to the tax payer again or if the home is in a homeowners association it will be assessed to the neighborhood. Of course those rich white folk deserve to have to pay it anyway.
How is this supposed to help? The insured will be penalized at the time of claim because they may not have the coverage required. The insured should be paying for what is required, not what politicians think they should.
Amy, it’s not suppose to help, it suppose to make the Mass AG look like she “cares” about “the folks”.
Here’s a novel idea, let’s do away with FEMA and the Army Corp of Engineers flood mitigation programs let these states do their own thing. They seem to know best. They know better ways to handle their dams, dikes, levies, etc. They also always know how to better handle the claims. They now seem to know better about how to manage, fund and charge for their ppls ins coverage.
I say fine. You are now exempt from any FEMA interaction (including monetary transfers) and may go your merry way.
Include obumacareless in the deal insguy and you gotta deal!
Wouldn’t that be nice? Why did flood become a federal program and not something that each state managed?
Has Martha figured out that the flood insurance subsidy being eliminated has encouraged development that threatens the sacred wetlands? Is she against protecting wetlands now?
Maybe its time to transfer the burden of flood risk to the states. Let them develop their own flood insurance programs. They have full control of the building codes that have allowed so much development in at risk areas in the first place. Why should other states have to pay for flooding in another state that has been irresponsible in allowing and even encouraging building in known flood zones?
And make sure you prohibit any Federal Reinsurance provisions. Wait, that’s what we used to have.
Please sign this White House petition asking President Obama to fix the mess that FEMA and Congress has made of out flood insurance! http://wh.gov/lT2OU
Great idea, giving the executive branch more power! Let’s just dissolve the legislative branch while we’re at it.
Why would I sign that, if it’s not risk based rating? The way it’s worded is basically saying that they’re doing everything OK except for the new flood maps that are causing some high risk properties’ premiums to dramatically increase.
What it should ask for is to stop giving tens of millions of $$$ to high value investment condo properties in the form of LOMR(?) exceptions to the new rates in the B/W NFIP bill.
Quite frankly it wouldn’t suprise me if the shell corps that own alot of these properties recieving exceptions aren’t China-controlled investment houses. Let’s face it, they are our single biggest creditor, owning 8% of our debt load.
Who needs a nuclear MAD strategy? Pretty soon we’ll be at their mercy because we won’t have enough of our own money to operate.
You mean people with preexisting conditions should pay premiums based on risk? That’s just not right….says Obumacareless!
This seems like an open invitation to lawsuits against insurance agents who place such limited coverage, leaving the homeowner with no insurance for the remaining value of the home or content or additional living expense. After the flood event, homeowners will seek the balance of the coverage they didn’t buy from the E&O policy of their agent. Mass Agents: make sure you have disclosure and consent forms ready to go if this travesty becomes the law.
Why should any one that is not in a flood zone pay anything towards flood insurance??? I’ll never use it and I have to pay for it??? All them folks that live on the Miss River keep flooding and rebuilding just to go through it again and again.
Everyone is in a flood zone, just depends upon the one you are in. Did you know that there are more flood losses in preferred zones than any other?. And you should really never say you’ll never use it!
I survived the 08/08 floods with out a drop… That was the 100 year high water mark in my neck of the woods. I’ll take my chances. floods that went on in Spring, 2013 survived them too.
I had no idea on that stat. Good info. Thanks.
“Why should i buy flood ins and never use it?” Hmmmm, why should a 26 year old healthy man be forced to buy health ins to subsidize the drinking,smoking,fat lady with pre-existing conditions that keeps buying lunch at McD’s etc. Wake up people!
You’re right. The 26 year old healthy man shouldn’t be forced to buy health insurance. It should just be provided for him and every other American, for that matter. Including the drinking, smoking, fat lady with pre-existing conditions.
we send too much $$$$ to foreign nations for the country to be able to afford Free HealthCare.
Libby-
“it should be provided” ??? You mean paid for by someone else right? You do know the government doesn’t make a profit on anything it does right??? You are so compassionate with other peoples money. Typical democrat!