I always get confused when state politicians solicit help from the Federal Gov’t. On one hand I hear state politicians complain and “states rights” and keeping the Feds out of their business and then you see this type of legislation that asks for Federal programs. I am not sure the good people of Arizona want to pay for our hurricane losses.
If we had a $100 cat fund assessment added to each policies, that’s about $4 billion in revenue. If we went another 7 years without a major event, that’s $28 billion (assuming no investment income) in claims paying ability for the Cat fund in addition to the 7 billion they have. Plenty for even the worst event. Unfortunately no politician would risk charging the people less than $10 per month to make a bad system good.
I always get confused when state politicians solicit help from the Federal Gov’t. On one hand I hear state politicians complain and “states rights” and keeping the Feds out of their business and then you see this type of legislation that asks for Federal programs. I am not sure the good people of Arizona want to pay for our hurricane losses.
Remember, most of them are lawyer. It’s their nature to seek out the deepest pocket regardless of accountability.
If we had a $100 cat fund assessment added to each policies, that’s about $4 billion in revenue. If we went another 7 years without a major event, that’s $28 billion (assuming no investment income) in claims paying ability for the Cat fund in addition to the 7 billion they have. Plenty for even the worst event. Unfortunately no politician would risk charging the people less than $10 per month to make a bad system good.
Easy solution (that won’t happen)…..charge premiums that reflect the actual risk.