Senate Democrats Delete House-Backed Private Flood Insurance Policy Measure

By | September 29, 2017

  • September 29, 2017 at 1:58 pm
    Jack Kanauph says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 3

    OK TRUMP bashers, what have you to say about this? It expires tomorrow.

    • September 29, 2017 at 2:15 pm
      Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 8

      They will say it is all his fault. By the way, Thursday Night football had both teams standing for the National Anthem after the President took them to the woodshed.

      • October 2, 2017 at 11:48 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 4

        We are all so happy he is dealing with the important issues instead of things like the disaster in Puerto Rico. Oh wait, he did have a Twitter meltdown after ignoring it while golfing and profiteering at his golf course for 4 days, and called them ingrates, lazy, and blamed the “fake news,” of course, as well as openly lying and saying things like every building there had been inspected. It goes without saying that you think he is doiny a heck of a job there, and Obama was terrible during Katrina.

        Also, genius, both teams on Thursday linked arms in protest, and at least 11 kneeled in the primetime game last night so by your standards things have gotten worse for Trump after taking them to the woodshed, right?

        Very telling you have no problem with police killing unarmed black people but become enraged when those actions are protested.

    • September 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm
      Counterpoint says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 9
      Thumb down 0

      Not necessarily a Trump basher, but I think this is an OK move. The amendment would have allowed people to get lower flood rates but that just means that the NFPA’s underwriting equity would fall even more. Before we do that we have to do something to stabilize the NFPA so that this amendment can’t be used as an excuse to get rid of the NFPA entirely.

      We wouldn’t want Congress to pull the old switcharoonie on us where they can’t get rid of a department or project so they ruin it just enough to point at it later and say “wow look how bad it’s doing” and ride the wave of public opinion while conveniently forgetting to mention that they are the ones who made it do badly.

      • September 29, 2017 at 3:14 pm
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 4

        De-reg will be the ONLY way for private insurance to thrive and replace NFIP – a move long overdue. But the private market will not go for more regulation and govt interference AFTER NFIP ends.

      • October 2, 2017 at 10:41 am
        wayne smith says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        Why should other tax payers be on the hook so that other people can build houses in flood prone areas?

  • September 29, 2017 at 2:57 pm
    HGL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    I am just not a believer that Private Market flood coverage is the answer here. If insurance carriers plan to take on flood individually, I doubt the rates are going to be lower than the NFIP or will generate savings for insureds. They may want us to believe that, but please…don’t fall for that.

    The program does need reform, but if we keep building back in the highest flood prone areas, then we are just wasting whatever money is spent rebuilding until the next flood returns. That is how the program ended up $30B in debt in the first place…

    • October 1, 2017 at 11:55 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 4

      The private industry is needed to mitigate the risk over time by egress of major risks from flood-prone areas. THAT alone will lower premiums for all flood insurance policy holders.

      Your thought process will only exacerbate costs by SUBSIDIZING them because BIG GOVT has no / little interest in cost control. And Dems have interest in socialized insurance with no cost control. But Republicans aren’t faultless either; they’ll allow many risks to remain in flood prone areas because of the political fallout it would cause to them if they tried to evacuate those risks over a few generations.

      • October 2, 2017 at 11:31 am
        UW says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        This is completely opposite your previous plan to have government buy all land alomh coastlines.

        • October 2, 2017 at 1:43 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 2
          Thumb down 0

          If you bet on every number in roulette you’re going to be right one of those times and can then say “See – I told you – I KNEW that was going to happen!”

  • September 30, 2017 at 2:07 pm
    charles strenc says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 4

    I believe the flood insurance should be purchased by the consumer being able to buy a policy for agreed value at the time of purchase. A 50 k insurance would pay 50 k ,not be subject to the whim of insurance adjusters or fema who try to cheat taxpayers .The amount of the policies should reflect what the homeowner needs to protect his or the banks interest .This would result in faster recovery from disasters and not knowing what funds you have to rebuild .Too much money is lost in the current system in insurance companies getting up to 40% in fees.

  • November 11, 2017 at 7:02 pm
    Carrie Hester says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have received the beautifully laminated flyer in the mail notifying me that my flood insurance will be going up 25% every year that I don’t have an Elevation Certificate, 25%. That will be $4500.00/year in flood insurance, literally 10x my homeowners insurance, because I live near a creek. Conveniently received just after 2 huge hurricane disasters that FEMA has to pay for, excuse me, that people who live near creeks that have never caused damage to property in upstate NY will be helping foot the bill to. Government has no place in the insurance business and have created a monopoly over it.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*