Agents Applaud House Passage of Flood Insurance Program Extension

July 16, 2010

  • July 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    the agents and their associations are all hypocrites and guilty of “bellying up to the public trough”. no governmental agency should be in the insurance business. if the private system can’t/won’t insure it, then the government shouldn’t be steppinig in. the FEMA system is living proof: $20 billion in red ink that won’t be repaid back to the taxpayers. the flood system subsidizes beach front property owners at the expense of the tax payers.

  • July 16, 2010 at 1:02 am
    Chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How many of those agents have been demanding that our government get out of this or that? I bet 1/2 the agents I know identify with the “Tea” party and most of the rest profess to be small gov Republicans.

  • July 16, 2010 at 2:15 am
    It SHOULD be the sound of... says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    the agents slapping the silly s**t out of those legislators who can’t do this or anything else for that matter. Unfortunately I think all we will get is Tea Pee also.

  • July 16, 2010 at 2:21 am
    Raider Fan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The last time this was hanging out there I made the same statement about the beach front properties and how the Federal Govt. (taxpayors) should not have to fund this program. You both hit the nail on the head and it will be fun to see these guys come out of the woodwork and fire back.

  • July 16, 2010 at 3:05 am
    Jimmy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Private insurers can’t or won’t insure flood normally. FEMA is going to step in and pay flood damage for those without flood insurance. Look at New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Isn’t it better that many homeowners and businesses are paying a premium to help offset FEMA’s payments to the uninsured. I have flood insurance and while my premium is only about $350, I am not in a flood zone A and do not expect to ever have to make a claim. If everybody that owned property bought flood insurance, possibly the program would be self sufficient. Just a thought.

  • July 16, 2010 at 5:15 am
    Nerd of Insurance says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well here is my take on it. Yes I agree that government should get out of insurance, flood included but before government steps aside, we should have something already ready to go before flood goes into sunset. We have 5 years now to make up a model of what would be an acutarly sound flood insurance model. But there is one problem. As some of you have mentioned, NFIP is and has been in the red for a loooooong time. They have set thier prices too low. In order for an insurance company to stay solvent, the have to charge proper premium for it. Insureds have gotten used to the artifically low premium on their flood insurance, so an insurance company that charges the correct premium will be, in the insureds’ eyes “Just another greedy company that wants to take my money because they can” and it will be all the evil insurance companies’ fault that flood insurance is too high.

  • July 16, 2010 at 6:39 am
    Cassandra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I hear you, Chuck. Everybody wants to cut programs until it hits their own pockets, and the southern legislators screaming the most invective have their hands out the fastest when it is their own pockets…or lose their scruples about capitalism and regulation when they chose to ignore decades of precedent and put in the “negate concurrency” clause. So much for unfettered capitalism and letting the “nmarket determine the pricing.

    Here’s another one. Did any of you read the article that Jindal of LA (at one point thought to be the GOP’s rising star) signed the bill that prohibits insurance companies from cancelling policies on known chinese drywall homes? Despite the fact that material defect and inherent vice has been unambiguously in the policy language for decades??? Again, HYPOCRITES.

    Here is the difference as far as I can determine…rather than let government do it, these guys want to nmake profit making capitalist ventures, in this case, insurance companies, quasi social service agencies…I can only assume that from the Taylor amendment and the Jindal signature….

  • July 19, 2010 at 7:39 am
    Ins Grl NY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    After reading all of your comments, I’ve concluded that insurance classes, including flood, should be a requirement in our schools to prevent further ignorance. First of all, floods don’t just happen along the coast and so we are not just dealing with beach front properties. Second, no one has ever argued that the government should get out of insurance until it became clear that the government was going to expect the people to step up and do their part. Third, the NFIP is not a fully government funded program. We/I work with people who pay a lot of money for their flood insurance. These are responsible people who recognize the risk and are taking the necessary steps to protect themselves. They should not suffer because the NFIP is consistently used as a pawn to get other programs through. AND, I’m interested to see how against government programs you all would be if you had to access them for yourself. That certainly changes the perspective.

    I agree that the program needs reform and honest agents such as myself have been asking for years for the type of reform necessary. Our requests have fallen on deaf ears. Pushed aside by more pressing needs. And please don’t accuse us of ONLY being insterested in profit. It’s an insult & simply not true.

  • July 19, 2010 at 11:20 am
    Cassandra says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hope you did not construe what I said about profits…what I meant to say was that the southern govts appear to want to take profit making corporations (insurance companies) and make them quasi social services operations by “rewriting” the insurance ocontractr to suit their wishes, such as via the Taylor amendment on concurrency of cause and the refusal to allow insurors to cancel policies with know inherent vice or defect (Chinese drywall).

    frankly, I wish that the govt would charge 1/2% of ALL insurance policies for ALL policyholders and put this in a cartastrophy fund rather than subject those that don’t have the peril to paying for it through the private markets. This was evident after 9/11 when NY metro got absolutely socked with either refusals to write or renew or high costs for terrorism. the govt came up with some convoluted plan that they toyed around with for three years or so… If this was a “war on terrorism” then all citizens should have helped pay for the “war” and ALL policyholders should have been assessed. Same with flood, which, as you point out is fairly universal. This, however, does not mean that the “local govts” get to allow building where it shouldn’t be; I say two strikes and you are out….your property is npurchased as a build free zone since I am sure the insurance payors do not want to continue to subsidize foolishness.

  • July 19, 2010 at 11:40 am
    Ins Grl NY says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You and I are on the same page Cassandra. :) For me, the biggest frustration is that people are left in limbo while they debate the topic which is why the five year extention was so important. We, as a whole, need that time to develop a better strategy. I personally would like to see Flood covered under the standard policy. I have seen some carriers start to allow it as an endorsement. I don’t think that most would see that as a viable option however I think it would more than likely shift the additional costs to where they would be better suited.



Add a Comment

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

*