Everyone knows that it is the trailer houses built inland that we’ve been subsidizing for years that have caused the global warming and the increase in storm activities along the coast.
I have said for year, just make it mandatory coverage on every policy written in the U.S. Adjust the ECE rates acordingly just simply remove the exclusions. Adjust the deductibles by territory or something. Just for you info we already are paying for this coverage one way or the other. Common let’s just cover the perils.
It is hard to understand why we should subsidize people who want to live in coastal areas, which by their very nature are environmentally sensitive as well as being subject to catastrophes.
Why should the person living in a trailer away from the beach pay extra taxes and insurance so rich people can live by the ocean.
This policy makes no sense, except that Congress may come up with something dumber.
It is hard to understand why we should subsidize people who want to live in coastal areas, which by their very nature are environmentally sensitive as well as being subject to catastrophes.
Why should the person living in a trailer away from the beach pay extra taxes and insurance so rich people can live by the ocean.
This policy makes no sense, except that Congress may come up with something dumber.
We would all like to live in a beachfront home.Most of us can’t afford it. So why do those who live there deserve sympathy just because they’ve lived there for a long time? I should subsidize those who can’t afford it, even though I can’t either.
Additionally, the easiest & most obvious thing would be to say that none of the subsidies are available for new construction.
I have always contended working and living in a proximity to the Coast, though not ON the area with a “view”, that there is a General misunderstanding even in our industry that we all don’t share in the expenses now. We do, and we will, no matter how it is covered. If a person could purchase a Homeowner Policy, which includes all Catastrophes and just have the government assist (not take over) the reinsurance costs, we would all benefit in the end. Mudslides on a hillside are actually “flood” losses. Did you know that?
I can’t for the life of me understand why such a proposal should be supported. We should no more subsidize coastal property than we should homes in the Mid West built in flood plains year after year.
The only reason this is being floated is so that the insurers can make money where people don’t want to pay the true cost of coverage (or, at least the significantly increased costs of late). We should be adamantly opposed to subsidizing people that choose to live in coastal, disaster-prone areas. If someone lives along a coast, they should ante up the premium to do so. To add state and federal subsididies (read: taxpayer dollars) to supplement a bad idea is bad policy. Here’s an idea: let market forces work, instead of distorting them even further.
I’m not arguing whether insurance companies are “bad” or “good”. The point is that no company, insurance or otherwise, should profit on the backs or taxpayers that don’t benefit from the underlying tax. I don’t live in a coastal state, nor should I have to fund the people that do, so a federal subsidy for coastal insurance amounts to a tax on me for which I receive nothing in return.
Oh I dont drive on that road so my taxes should not be used to support the maintenance of it.I dont have any children why should I pay school taxes.
ECT,ECT,ECT We all benefit indirectly.
Everyone knows that it is the trailer houses built inland that we’ve been subsidizing for years that have caused the global warming and the increase in storm activities along the coast.
I have said for year, just make it mandatory coverage on every policy written in the U.S. Adjust the ECE rates acordingly just simply remove the exclusions. Adjust the deductibles by territory or something. Just for you info we already are paying for this coverage one way or the other. Common let’s just cover the perils.
It is hard to understand why we should subsidize people who want to live in coastal areas, which by their very nature are environmentally sensitive as well as being subject to catastrophes.
Why should the person living in a trailer away from the beach pay extra taxes and insurance so rich people can live by the ocean.
This policy makes no sense, except that Congress may come up with something dumber.
Al
It is hard to understand why we should subsidize people who want to live in coastal areas, which by their very nature are environmentally sensitive as well as being subject to catastrophes.
Why should the person living in a trailer away from the beach pay extra taxes and insurance so rich people can live by the ocean.
This policy makes no sense, except that Congress may come up with something dumber.
Al
We would all like to live in a beachfront home.Most of us can’t afford it. So why do those who live there deserve sympathy just because they’ve lived there for a long time? I should subsidize those who can’t afford it, even though I can’t either.
Additionally, the easiest & most obvious thing would be to say that none of the subsidies are available for new construction.
I have always contended working and living in a proximity to the Coast, though not ON the area with a “view”, that there is a General misunderstanding even in our industry that we all don’t share in the expenses now. We do, and we will, no matter how it is covered. If a person could purchase a Homeowner Policy, which includes all Catastrophes and just have the government assist (not take over) the reinsurance costs, we would all benefit in the end. Mudslides on a hillside are actually “flood” losses. Did you know that?
Insurance Industry: Just say No to government subsidy. No good ever comes from it.
I can’t for the life of me understand why such a proposal should be supported. We should no more subsidize coastal property than we should homes in the Mid West built in flood plains year after year.
The only reason this is being floated is so that the insurers can make money where people don’t want to pay the true cost of coverage (or, at least the significantly increased costs of late). We should be adamantly opposed to subsidizing people that choose to live in coastal, disaster-prone areas. If someone lives along a coast, they should ante up the premium to do so. To add state and federal subsididies (read: taxpayer dollars) to supplement a bad idea is bad policy. Here’s an idea: let market forces work, instead of distorting them even further.
I’m confused by your commments. Are insurance companies bad or good here? Are they bad because they need to make a profit. What is your point?
I’m not arguing whether insurance companies are “bad” or “good”. The point is that no company, insurance or otherwise, should profit on the backs or taxpayers that don’t benefit from the underlying tax. I don’t live in a coastal state, nor should I have to fund the people that do, so a federal subsidy for coastal insurance amounts to a tax on me for which I receive nothing in return.
Oh I dont drive on that road so my taxes should not be used to support the maintenance of it.I dont have any children why should I pay school taxes.
ECT,ECT,ECT We all benefit indirectly.
go HIG!!!! l-e-a-d-e-r-s-h-i-p