Flood Insurance Reform Stalls in Congress

By | August 28, 2007

  • August 29, 2007 at 12:58 pm
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sounds like the boys locker room. What I
    like is us paying to rebuild New Orleans
    at taxpayer expense. What will we do when it is trashed again? Why more of my
    dollars for sure. That sounds logical.

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:08 am
    CA Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You must be joking. They’re too darn busy with their political infighting to do anything for the country.

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:09 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It seems fair that those willing to live in areas prone to flooding should be willing to pay more for the increased risk. Just as those who live in areas continullay threatened by wild fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. should pay for the increased exposure.

    Whatever happened to rates based on exposures? Actuaries still are around, aren’t they? If the higher cost of insurance (and realistically – – is an increase of 15% on $400 going to break anyone?) cannot be handled by the person living in the area subject to the higher risk event, that person should just move to a place they can afford.

    If you cannot afford something, don’t buy it! Duh.

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:14 am
    Observer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Until we revamp the entire flood program so that the fed’s continue with the program, but all HO policies contain the flood peril and insurance companies collect the premium — forward a portion of the premium to the fed’s — it must be seamless to the policyholder. When we require policyholders to get a HO policy, a flood policy, earthquake policy and a wind policy — then we are asking for problems. Too many people in flood prone areas are not buying the coverage —- or because their mortgage company may not be forcing them to purchase the coverage, they don’t want to purchase it. We have to stop the subsidies to people who chose not to purchase coverage.

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:21 am
    himself says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    CA Agent hit it right on the head…Congress’ current approval rating is even less than that of President Bush, whose rating is so far in the tank that even if he could run for a 3rd term it is unlikely that he would even be a backfield candidate. I think we ought to flush the toilet that is D.C. and repopulate it with real Americans who have a grasp on what it is like to live in the U.S. today. I know: That’s a pipe dream…there are too many citizens who just don’t care enough to vote or even keep up with the news. Pathetic.

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:22 am
    Promises, Promises says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Got that right! Myth: Politicians & Promises Reality: Politicians, little enthusiasm, unpopular steps. What’s that word? Oh yeah, Eunic!!

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:26 am
    News & Voting says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m pretty sure most citizens keep up with the news & vote, however, remember when our illustrious politicians wanted to reduce the voting age because of low voter turn out? Look what we get for our taxes! They certainly live in a dream world don’t they?

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:27 am
    Retro Man says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wouldn’t mind paying a 15% increase if the premium was only $400. I live a mile and a half from the beach (Bayshore, not the ocean), yet I’m paying $1200 a year for flood insurance. I’ve lived there for 15 years through numerous nor’easters and tropical storms, without once having to file a claim. Add to that my $1100 homeowners policy and I’m paying $2300 a year to insure my home, which is worth about $500k at inflated NY metro area prices.

    Instead of price increases they should force everyone living in a flood zone to buy flood insurance or otherwise be ineligible for federal disaster relief if and when a flood strikes.

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:29 am
    The Ultimate of Ultimates says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “I think we ought to flush the toilet that is D.C. ”

    himself,

    Please don’t insult toilets by grouping them with politicians.

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:39 am
    Stealth Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let’s hope they do NOT do anything. Anything they “do,” is beneficial only to their own pockets and those of their special interest group lobbyists and rent-seekers, and destructive to decent people.

    As that keen observer of the human condition Groucho Mark defined politics: “the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, coming up with the wrong solution, and applying it incorrectly.”

  • August 28, 2007 at 1:54 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So, given the figures used in the article ($400 premium per $100,000 of coverage), you should really be paying $2,000 for your flood coverage. You’re not carrying your load. Just messing with you.

    But, you are right. Flood coverage should be mandatory for those in flood areas, just as Auto insurance is mandatory in most states. There will be some who flaunt the rules by not purchasing any coverage. But, if it is required by the Mortgage companies, there will be a good concentration of policy holders help relieve the taxpayers in non-flood areas who end up subsidizing the uninsured.

  • August 28, 2007 at 2:01 am
    Retro Man says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I forgot to mention that the coverage is limited to a maximum of $250k, so it DOES work out to an avg of $400 per $100K of coverage.

    Mortgage companies DO require flood insurance if you live in a flood zone rated above a certain level. The problem are all those with no mortgages, or living in an area with a flood rating not commensurate with the actual risk.

  • August 28, 2007 at 2:05 am
    Key West agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Since 08 is an election year. Congress will do what they normally do, nothing. They do not want to piss off their constituents by doing the right thing now do they!

  • August 28, 2007 at 2:12 am
    himself says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Key West Agent: You’re so right. Their constituents wouldn’t know what hit ’em if Congress suddenly and without warning began actually enacting legislation that benefited the public rather than members of Congress.

    And to the Ultimate of Ultimates: I apologize to toilets everywhere. I was rash and unthinking when making my remarks and I’m ashamed.

  • August 28, 2007 at 2:45 am
    RAL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Flushing the toilet could be another expense, like $4000.00 toilets, if we left congress buy them.
    All they worry about is what they can do to hurt the other party!

  • August 29, 2007 at 8:52 am
    RAL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What about the money we are spending in Iraq just so they can trash it again!

  • August 29, 2007 at 9:26 am
    Fla. Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    With regard to spreading the “risk” as some posters have proposed.
    I’d be willing to hazard (no pun intended) a guess, that the vast majority of people flooded in the mid-west are in Low to Moderate Risk flood zones. Historically, 25 to 30% of all flooding occurs in these low risk areas.

    Compare the cost of the Preferred Risk Policy to that of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) for the same limits in these low to moderate risk zones, and the savings is substantial.

    Problem is, most mortgage companies will not escrow for flood premiums unless the coverage is manditory. So for Joe Average, paying the lumpsum premium rather than spreading it out through their mortgage payments, leads to a number of policies lapsing after a few years of no flood occurrances.

    All of the country is a flood zone, and agents will serve their customers (and themselves) well by offering the coverage.

  • August 29, 2007 at 9:32 am
    RAL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Fla. Agent, you are absolutely right! For the small premium of Preferred Risk it would be well worth it.

  • August 29, 2007 at 12:49 pm
    Midwesterner says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I disagree that all the country is a flood zone. I live at the top of a hill in IA and if a flood reaches me, I am going to be looking for the ark.

    That being said, I agree that flood insurance needs to be mandatory in flood zones. Hopefully that would keep all of those that can’t pay the premiums out of the flood zones in the first place.

  • September 4, 2007 at 3:42 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What about it?

  • September 4, 2007 at 11:27 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As far as I know, in most areas of the country, flood insurance IS mandatory if you are considered to be even a little in a flood zone. How the whole city of New Orleans was deemed to be out of harm’s way because they had levees is beyond me. My city also has levees, yet anyone buying a home with a mortgage in a flood zone is required to have the insurance.
    I don’t think anyone can escrow for flood insurance. I thought the rule is that the annual premim has to be paid upfront. Has anyone else found out differently?

  • September 4, 2007 at 3:27 am
    RAL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No, not all areas of NO are the surrounding area is deemed a flood zone. Therefore, not all areas are required to have flood insurance. My friend lived in St Bernard and did not live in a flood zone,therefore, the mortgage company did not require flood insurance. The house is 2 feet off ground and had 5 feet of water in it and you know what, FEMA still does not declare it in a flood zone. Go figure! I live about 500 yds from the Mississippi River which has levees and am not in a flood zone. I am 12 feet above sea level and it has never flooded here, I do have Preferred Risk. Being surrounded by levees does not mean you are in a flood zone!



Add a Comment

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

*