Republicans to Re-launch U.S. Flood Insurance Overhaul

By | March 4, 2011

  • March 4, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    J.S. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It’s a commendable goal to take the taxpayer off the hook as much as possible for this. This obviously requires increases in the rates being charged.

    So, since this is a Republican bill, it’s safe to say that middle and lower income people with modest homes will see a substantial increase in their premium. However, the mega-wealthy owners of multi-billion dollar properties on the coast will see substantial decreases.

    Some things never change.

    • March 6, 2011 at 10:53 am
      Former Status Quo says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      JS –

      I wouldn’t say that at all. All the new flood maps are calling for increases in rates for all properties in flood zones, you should actually look at the maps and rates before making a comment like that. The reason that the middle and lower income residents are going to see increases in their premiums is because a) the government has supressed their rates for so long that it is no longer economically possible for the NFIP to operate and b) the same legislators that were surpressing the rates didn’t do anything to improve the quality of levees, as a result the risk of levee failure is up which results in a rise in flood risk.

      Don’t sit here and point the finger at the republicans as being the hit squad on middle and lower class people. The democrats did that by “protecting” the middle class and the time has finally come to pay the piper. If you live in a flood zone then you pay the premium for living there, if you don’t like it leave. As a tax payer I should not be subsidizing the flood premiums of anyone, especially when I don’t get the benefit of the property.

    • March 7, 2011 at 12:16 pm
      Sarah says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      JS- You idiot the rates are a composite rate based on value!

      So in your class warfare on wellfare neighborhood of mobile homes, your off the hook for higher rates and so is the “I earned my money” neighborhood down the road.

      Your both going to have to pay higher rates, and no the other neighborhood does not need to pay for your insurance either!

    • March 7, 2011 at 6:10 pm
      MD says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      You realy believe that flood maps are made so the rich get a break, you bleading heart, people like you always have the same answer to everthing, make the rich pay, and well if its not a dem bill it must be pro rich. this is why your party lost the house. Im not rich by a long shot and i think the rich pay enough. I would like you to explain how people who dont work get tax refunds! They dont pay in yet they get a refund? Only the dems do math like that and that kind of math is why the NFIP and the USA are in so much debt.

  • March 6, 2011 at 1:26 pm
    Boonedoggle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While I have no particular objection to flood insurance being provided by a government sponsored facility, the issue of rate adequacy must assure that the program is self sustaining.

    Additionally, some underwriting standards for risks generating repeated claims need to be considered.

  • March 7, 2011 at 9:31 am
    ComradeAnon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Flood insurance is just another form of welfare. We need to have an “adult conversation” about this and get rid of it.

    • March 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm
      MD says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      the adult conversation we need to have is “here is the cost of flood insurance, if you cant afford that then dont buy a house in a flood zone” nuf said

  • March 7, 2011 at 12:10 pm
    Sarah says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Here is an idea for Government, Lets use an actuary to determine the appropriate rate and then CHARGE THAT RATE!

    DUH! I know Government does not understand you have to charge what something costs and you have to take in what you spend, but hey this has gotten to the point of being rediculus.

  • March 7, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When I marketed flood insurance for one of the largest write your own companies in areas outside of the coastal regions, very few insureds asked for the coverage. Accordingly, the agents concluded it was not cost effective to remain current on the program for the little commission they receive (and the policy was probably going to lapse after a term or two anyway).
    We can solve the flood insurance problem – require the offer of flood insurance as an endorsement on every homeowner policy in America at the actuarially correct rate. The government can then provide 100% reinsurance and pay the issuing company to adjust any losses. A signed rejection makes the homeowner ineligible for any type of federal assistance. The unselfish, idealistic people , like J.S., can elect coverage, even if they don’t need it, and voluntarily subsidize those that do.

    • March 7, 2011 at 6:13 pm
      MD says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      lol JS would never do that because the rich need to pay

  • March 8, 2011 at 11:54 am
    David B says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bob’s idea of actuarial data is good except that would include rate increases for people nationally. So from the makers of TARP, Recovery ACT, Healthcare, AIG (non p&c), manufactured gasoline shortages, Swine flu, Bird flu, and the most profitable of all SOCIAL SECURITY (Broke fund) we bring you “THE FLOOD ENDORSEMENT.”

    File that one under: “Yah Right” They can make a bill, but it doesn’t mean they have to fund it.

  • March 9, 2016 at 3:30 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Standard homeowners’ insurance does not cover flooding?



Add a Comment

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

*