People who are crazy enough to rely on the “protection” provided by a levee need to have flood insurance. This is a no brainer. Levees are inherently prone to failure and actually have been proven to worsen the flood risk. The fact is, Levee’s are only typically designed for 100-year flood protection. What happens when a 101-year flood strikes?
Again, people should not be building and living in dangerous areas. This is simply insane!
I am sure that the people living near the levees have seen what happens when disaster hits. The people with no insurance get FEMA funds for whatever is lost. The ones with flood insurance get less and had to pay for it.
“require certain homeowners and businesses…to purchase flood insurance” … The gov’t can’t force anyone to purchase coverage (the issue about gov’t financially backstopping mortgages and requiring the mortgage provider to force the customer to carry flood insurance as a term of the loan is a separate issue). However, if they choose not protect themselves they should not expect FEMA or anyone else to come in after the fact with disaster funds and/or low interest loans.
“The gov’t can’t force anyone to purchase coverage.”
Why not? They force you to purchase auto insurance if you want to drive your car on public roads? Why can’t they require you to purchase flood insurance if the government built levee is protecting the property? Why can’t they require you to purchase health insurance if they know you are going to participate in the health car esystem in this country?
Was anyone paying attention to the debate last night? Did you catch what I’ve been saying in these forums for the past several months? The individual mandate was a Reoublican idea, pushed by Newt Gingrich and other Reoublican politicians and the conservative Heritage Foundation in response to Clinton’s single player plan. Why was it a good idea when Republicans proposed it (and when Romney implemented it), but now that a Democrat embraced it, it’s now the worst thing that ever happened to us?
If I didn’t make it clear, and you didn’t watch the debate, Gingrich admitted the individual mandate was his and the Heritage Foundation’s idea in response to Clinton’s health care proposal.
1) first of all the federal gov’t is not the ones stating you need to have auto insurance, it is the states. now, if you look at that, they are protecting those individual that are on the road other than you. we don’t want that not-fault victim to spend money his medical bill and cause him to become bankrupt.
2) now, my problem, they can’t mandate it, but those banks that are financing the house sure can mandate carrying that insurance to cover their loss in case of flooding.
its not that the government is making them, the mortgage companies will apply flood if the homeowner doesnt purchase it, then it will be at least triple the rate National Flood Service would cost if the owner did it themselves
Here is a novel idea, don’t let people build in areas prone to flooding! Or if they do make them sign an agreement understanding they are on their own.
In 1987 I was taking a physical geography class and my professor said in our lifetime we will see New Orleans get hit with a cat V and it will be wiped out. It happens every 30-40 years. So why do we insist on fighting this battle we can’t win against mother nature? Some places are not meant to be built on.
Maybe the Senators are trying to help their constituents, but they should consider what happens when levees fail. There are two kinds of levees: those that have and those that will fail, someday.
Lenders should require flood insurance just as fire insurance is a requirement. The insurance cost should be based on risk. If the level of flood protection only reaches the 1 chance in 100 for annual flooding the cost of the coverage would be 1 percent of the policy. If the level of flood risk is 1 chance in 200 for annual flooding the cost of the policy should be 0.5 percent of the coverage. Likewise for a 1 chance in 500 for annual coverage the cost of the risk is 0.2 percent.
In a privatized program the administration and profit would be added to the policy. It is not logical to allow people to drop insurance if they have levees or other protection to the 1 percent probability flood. In a 30-year mortgage there is a 26 percent chance that a flood greater than the 1 percent probability flood will occur. In the flood plain this is an unacceptable risk. Lenders require fire insurance and there are very few neighborhoods where one house in four is destroyed by fire. Why should there be a different level of acceptable risk for floods and fires?
People with a 1 percent probability of flooding should pay in proportion to the risk. People with a 0.5 percent probability of flooding should pay to cover their risk and people with a 0.2 percent probability of flooding should pay to cover their risk. This will require FEMA to map the 100-year, 200-year, and 500-year flood hazard areas. Hopefully this will result in behavior that mitigates future risk and the cost to society. Should people live in the flood plain?
here’s the other thing, if the fed’s are trying to mandate that if you live near a levee or dam and don’t need flooding insurance, then what happens if one is overun like the new orleans during hurricane katrina? or what about recently, when the gov’t decided to blowup a levee to relieve the pressure on the mississippi river? is the gov’t going to own up to paying them because they released the flow of water into an area that should have been safe?
People who are crazy enough to rely on the “protection” provided by a levee need to have flood insurance. This is a no brainer. Levees are inherently prone to failure and actually have been proven to worsen the flood risk. The fact is, Levee’s are only typically designed for 100-year flood protection. What happens when a 101-year flood strikes?
Again, people should not be building and living in dangerous areas. This is simply insane!
I am sure that the people living near the levees have seen what happens when disaster hits. The people with no insurance get FEMA funds for whatever is lost. The ones with flood insurance get less and had to pay for it.
Sounds like the ones that went ‘naked’ fare better. If they don’t have to have it its a ‘no-brainer’
“require certain homeowners and businesses…to purchase flood insurance” … The gov’t can’t force anyone to purchase coverage (the issue about gov’t financially backstopping mortgages and requiring the mortgage provider to force the customer to carry flood insurance as a term of the loan is a separate issue). However, if they choose not protect themselves they should not expect FEMA or anyone else to come in after the fact with disaster funds and/or low interest loans.
“The gov’t can’t force anyone to purchase coverage.”
Why not? They force you to purchase auto insurance if you want to drive your car on public roads? Why can’t they require you to purchase flood insurance if the government built levee is protecting the property? Why can’t they require you to purchase health insurance if they know you are going to participate in the health car esystem in this country?
Was anyone paying attention to the debate last night? Did you catch what I’ve been saying in these forums for the past several months? The individual mandate was a Reoublican idea, pushed by Newt Gingrich and other Reoublican politicians and the conservative Heritage Foundation in response to Clinton’s single player plan. Why was it a good idea when Republicans proposed it (and when Romney implemented it), but now that a Democrat embraced it, it’s now the worst thing that ever happened to us?
If I didn’t make it clear, and you didn’t watch the debate, Gingrich admitted the individual mandate was his and the Heritage Foundation’s idea in response to Clinton’s health care proposal.
i have a problem with your thought process…
1) first of all the federal gov’t is not the ones stating you need to have auto insurance, it is the states. now, if you look at that, they are protecting those individual that are on the road other than you. we don’t want that not-fault victim to spend money his medical bill and cause him to become bankrupt.
2) now, my problem, they can’t mandate it, but those banks that are financing the house sure can mandate carrying that insurance to cover their loss in case of flooding.
its not that the government is making them, the mortgage companies will apply flood if the homeowner doesnt purchase it, then it will be at least triple the rate National Flood Service would cost if the owner did it themselves
Here is a novel idea, don’t let people build in areas prone to flooding! Or if they do make them sign an agreement understanding they are on their own.
In 1987 I was taking a physical geography class and my professor said in our lifetime we will see New Orleans get hit with a cat V and it will be wiped out. It happens every 30-40 years. So why do we insist on fighting this battle we can’t win against mother nature? Some places are not meant to be built on.
Maybe the Senators are trying to help their constituents, but they should consider what happens when levees fail. There are two kinds of levees: those that have and those that will fail, someday.
Lenders should require flood insurance just as fire insurance is a requirement. The insurance cost should be based on risk. If the level of flood protection only reaches the 1 chance in 100 for annual flooding the cost of the coverage would be 1 percent of the policy. If the level of flood risk is 1 chance in 200 for annual flooding the cost of the policy should be 0.5 percent of the coverage. Likewise for a 1 chance in 500 for annual coverage the cost of the risk is 0.2 percent.
In a privatized program the administration and profit would be added to the policy. It is not logical to allow people to drop insurance if they have levees or other protection to the 1 percent probability flood. In a 30-year mortgage there is a 26 percent chance that a flood greater than the 1 percent probability flood will occur. In the flood plain this is an unacceptable risk. Lenders require fire insurance and there are very few neighborhoods where one house in four is destroyed by fire. Why should there be a different level of acceptable risk for floods and fires?
People with a 1 percent probability of flooding should pay in proportion to the risk. People with a 0.5 percent probability of flooding should pay to cover their risk and people with a 0.2 percent probability of flooding should pay to cover their risk. This will require FEMA to map the 100-year, 200-year, and 500-year flood hazard areas. Hopefully this will result in behavior that mitigates future risk and the cost to society. Should people live in the flood plain?
here’s the other thing, if the fed’s are trying to mandate that if you live near a levee or dam and don’t need flooding insurance, then what happens if one is overun like the new orleans during hurricane katrina? or what about recently, when the gov’t decided to blowup a levee to relieve the pressure on the mississippi river? is the gov’t going to own up to paying them because they released the flow of water into an area that should have been safe?