I agree with Michigan trying to opt out of the Fed’s flood program and encouraging a private alternative but for Representative Miller to characterize the current situation as Michigan being an ATM for the rest of the flood exposed homeowners, appears a little disingenuous.
I seem to remember a $300 million federal taxpayer bailout of Detroit last summer and more than a few billion tax payer dollars dispensed on Detroit’s auto bailout. It seems Michigan is okay using the Fed’s ATM dispensing federal taxpayer’s money but homeowners of other states cannot use Michigan’s ATM. You can loot and pillage the property of others to pay for our mistakes but leave my people (constituents) alone
I wouldn’t mind having my home state of MI opting out of the program, but her logic is skewed. Based on the number of policies, claims and the average claim amounts for each State:
MI 1.89% of policyholders filed a claim with average of $17,100
TX .14% of policyholders filed a claim with average of $16,383
FL .11% of policyholders filed a claim with average of $12,455
So, not sure where she is coming from! Personally, I much prefer private options for flood insurance.
Using data from one year is not a reasonable sample. If one were going to examine the experience of individual states within the NFIP, a 10 or 20 year statistical display would be more appropriate.
As to Ms. Miller’s call for Michigan to opt out of the NFIP, she better have an alternative ready for all the citizens of MI who are required by their mortgage companies to carry flood insurance. Dropping out of the NFIP does not void banking regulations.
Rep Miller is stating common sense. The NFIP should fund claims with premiums. Politics has taken over “again”. The rates in certain areas have been subsidized since inception by all of us who are not in a floodplain. A little may be fine, but when people deserve a $5000 cost to fund a likelihood of a claim, putting a cap of 1% is ridiculous politics at it’s worst. These state and county “politicians” who allowed the building initially have essentially said “don’t worry someone else in MI, IN, Ill. etc. will pay the other $4000 to pay subsidize my house. “Sick POLITICS” again, just like the ones who organized NFIP in the first place.
I agree with Michigan trying to opt out of the Fed’s flood program and encouraging a private alternative but for Representative Miller to characterize the current situation as Michigan being an ATM for the rest of the flood exposed homeowners, appears a little disingenuous.
I seem to remember a $300 million federal taxpayer bailout of Detroit last summer and more than a few billion tax payer dollars dispensed on Detroit’s auto bailout. It seems Michigan is okay using the Fed’s ATM dispensing federal taxpayer’s money but homeowners of other states cannot use Michigan’s ATM. You can loot and pillage the property of others to pay for our mistakes but leave my people (constituents) alone
I wouldn’t mind having my home state of MI opting out of the program, but her logic is skewed. Based on the number of policies, claims and the average claim amounts for each State:
MI 1.89% of policyholders filed a claim with average of $17,100
TX .14% of policyholders filed a claim with average of $16,383
FL .11% of policyholders filed a claim with average of $12,455
So, not sure where she is coming from! Personally, I much prefer private options for flood insurance.
I don’t know who Mitch Snyder is, but our Governor is Rick Snyder.
Using data from one year is not a reasonable sample. If one were going to examine the experience of individual states within the NFIP, a 10 or 20 year statistical display would be more appropriate.
As to Ms. Miller’s call for Michigan to opt out of the NFIP, she better have an alternative ready for all the citizens of MI who are required by their mortgage companies to carry flood insurance. Dropping out of the NFIP does not void banking regulations.
Rep Miller is stating common sense. The NFIP should fund claims with premiums. Politics has taken over “again”. The rates in certain areas have been subsidized since inception by all of us who are not in a floodplain. A little may be fine, but when people deserve a $5000 cost to fund a likelihood of a claim, putting a cap of 1% is ridiculous politics at it’s worst. These state and county “politicians” who allowed the building initially have essentially said “don’t worry someone else in MI, IN, Ill. etc. will pay the other $4000 to pay subsidize my house. “Sick POLITICS” again, just like the ones who organized NFIP in the first place.