Business-wise, anytime you can privatize something the government is trying to do will make it better. If it is private, then this is someone’s money and it will be spent more wisely. The government operates as if it has an unlimited supply of money, especially this president’s terms.
We should all demand to know how this program got into debt $14 billion.
The debt of the NFIP was caused by 5 major coastal storms in one year 2005 on the East Coast. Only 4% of flood policies are subsidised but they are concentrated in the older East coast communities that were built before the program and it’s elevation requirements, were developed. The NFIP is but one part of a flood plain management program that restricts building and rebuilding in the SFHA, something no private company can do.
No, a private company can’t restrict building and rebuilding. However, a company can charge an actuarially sound rate, which could be a deterrent to building & rebuilding.
Just because insurance is available doesn’t mean something should be built there. If consumers have no consequences for building in a flood plain, then they will continue to do so.
When people make decisions on whether to build or not based on the true costs and consequences of those decisions, they are much less likley to make bad choices.
Hey Dave, did you see the article in today’s Town Hall that we just went through the peak Hurricane season without “one” named storm, thanks to Global Warming. That hasn’t happened in almost 4 decades. Ice caps are growing on both poles and we are shortly going to be seeing Global Cooling before 2030. This doesn’t seem to fit the mantra that man is causing the earth to heat up. My guess is that Lake Michigan will freeze over again this winter.
September 15, 2015 at 4:59 pm
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
please stop spreading false information. you make yourself look foolish when you keep saying the same lies over and over even though you have been proven wrong dozens of times
September 16, 2015 at 8:03 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Hurricane Danny and Hurricane Fred occurred in the Atlantic this year, Agent.
I guess technically you’re right – there wasn’t “one” named storm this year, there were two!!
September 16, 2015 at 9:22 am
confused says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
actually rosenblatt, there were two named hurricanes this year but there were actually 8 names storms in the atlantic in 2015
September 16, 2015 at 2:36 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
I stand corrected – I was wrong to say there were only 2 named storms in the Atlantic this year when there were 2 named hurricanes and 8 named storms. My mistake.
September 14, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Elizabeth Malone says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
The NFIP is a FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. You can’t get insurance at ANY price unless you adhere to the bulding restrictions on the SFHA. Communities are ALREADY built. Our flood maps in NYC are expanding (and who in the private industry will be doing this by-the-by?). Once a municipality joins the NFIP, bulding codes REQUIRE ALL FUTURE STURUCTURE to be reslient (usually meanihg elevated). The 4% problem is not with beach-front luxury homes, but from Balitmore to Boston with coastal neighborhoods. These are not people ‘deciding’ to build – WE’RE HERE. Flood insurance is susidised because ‘actuarially sound risk rates’ (and the NFIP rating sysrtem is VERY questionable) are unaffordable to the working class communities in the coastal neighborhoods. The ‘market’ is NEVER a free hand anyway as the bulding and real estate industries influence the bulding codes, and the government at all levels – including the federal – BW12 was ‘ammended’ by HFIAA when the realestate market in Tampa collapsed.
You do realize that private insurance is already available in some markets, don’t you?
September 15, 2015 at 3:09 pm
KY jw says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Oh, and who’s bright idea was it to purchase land that is prone to flooding? Your argument is that the homes are already there, but that doesn’t mean you should have bought one.
You are whining to the wrong group of professionals. The majority of us don’t believe in subsidized flood insurance because we understand the underlying principle of insurance. You have to charge a rate commensurate with the risk.
October 15, 2015 at 5:14 am
Yubin says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
‘Any market siaoutitn where the interests of investors run counter to the interests of society deserves a close look.’That’s tricky stuff, Roger? I see your point, and it’s sometimes true, for example anti-trust. But it’s not clear to me that cycles of reinsurance pricing (sometimes too cheap, sometimes too dear) are counter to society’s interests?The interests of investors are (generally) a decent return on investment, the decenter the better. I’m struggling, in any sector which doesn’t fall foul of the FTC (they are there for this sort of thing), to think of the sort of examples you mean.It’s surely not true in reinsurance and insurance – after all, Warren Buffett himself complained vigorously when the US government bailed out AIG thereby DEPRIVING Buffett’s companies from the profits from higher rates their prudence entitled them to when everone else had gone bust.:)More seriously, so long as the barriers to entry are not too difficult (which they may get in long-tail reinsurance) your sentence is a bit apple pie?
September 14, 2015 at 5:51 pm
insurance_guy says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“However, a company can charge an actuarially sound rate, which could be a deterrent to building & rebuilding.”
This only works if there is a mortgage in place. Otherwise, the owner will simply avoid the insurance altogether.
And should suffer the consequences if something happens.
Do I think big brother would finally put his foot down and say “No more throwing good money after bad”? No, someone would whine and get their property rebuilt. I disagree with that policy, but my opinion doesn’t hold much power.
October 15, 2015 at 11:46 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
KY, in the recent California fires, about 2,000 homes burned because they were in high fire prone areas with a lot of brush and trees. This has gone on for a long time with Santa Ana winds and dry areas. These people keep rebuilding on the same spot only to have it happen again and again. It is about the same as rebuilding in high flood prone areas.
September 14, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Jack you’re right. Private industry does just about everything better than government. It is a much better allocator of scarce resourses, it better allocates capital and better determines prices. And it is a better decision maker as to what businesses should exist and which should not. And if there are any ineffiencies in any market, it promptly eliminates them (absent government intervention). Putting this in private hands will more fairly determine prices which should be paid by those who purchase it.
Dave, the problem is that we have a government now who picks the winners and the losers. They decided it was best to encourage Wind & Solar, Algae, Cow dung, Ethanol instead of further development of coal, oil & gas. Of course, all those companies who got the loans went belly up after “burning” through their loans and how is the country better off for it? EPA has basically hamstrung industry for 7 years now. Time for them to go.
By all means turn all of it over to the insurance industry. But they want to mandate insurance? I thought that was socialism. And they need to understand that there can be no government backing or government reinsurance. And they will have to keep prices within a reasonable level compared to today’s pricing.
Who ever said anything about keeping prices reasonable compared to today’s pricing? We’re talking about market based pricing not interfered with by government regulators whatever those prices may be to help people make rational decisions about where and where not to build. You;re talking Socialism again Comrade. I want people to be priced out of places they shouldn’t build. I guess that a concept socialists don’t understand.
Dave, I agree that Flood should be privatized as long as they have the capital to pay large wide scale losses. We, the taxpayers shouldn’t reward people to re-build in flood prone areas over and over. That has been going on for a long time. NFIP is a typical government bureaucracy which is inefficient, wasteful and not very responsive in times of crisis.
What happened when Biggers-Waters attempted to establish actuarially sound pricing? Communities went berserk and Congress backtracked and rolled back rates with the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act. Insurance companies aren’t going to be in business very long if they don’t maintain sound pricing. I too think people should be kept from building in places they shouldn’t. But most of this market is for existing property. And why shouldn’t flood insurance be subsidized. We subsidize entire states, the roads we drive on, the energy and food we use, our communications, etc.
I’m confused. You said that there can be no government backing or government reinsurance. Then you respond to a response with why not subsidize. So what is your position exactly?
“And why shouldn’t flood insurance be subsidized…?”
Because it is more economically efficient to avoid “risks” that are actually certainties over long enough periods of time.
Existing property in flood plains should be abandoned over long periods of time… decades … by not rebuilding or fixing damaged or decaying structures. No new building in flood plains should be allowed. Parks could be made on such land.
the banks who own the collateral (homes & business) will never accept high rates, it stifles building in high risk places like the coast. And it’s the 1% that builds in high risk areas. Only way to privatize is if Gov guarantees it. There are no capitalist any more.
Interesting that in one post, Agent points out that we are not experiencing the negative effects that scientists warned us about if we do not change. Then, in another post, he points out some of the recommended changes have been implemented.
Your reading skills still need to be improved Ron. You should ask yourself why you always read things backward. Do you have dyslexia? My post was a criticism of Global Warming freaks who think the world should spend $80 Trillion to reduce C02 emissions 1% in hopes of reducing the average temperature .1%.
I asked a simple question Ron. Why do you chose to interpret whatever I say backwards from what I mean? Other than Confused and you, most others on the blog seem to know what I mean.
Agent, do you have less intelligence than a 2 year old child? that is a simple question and if you take that as an insult, please realize that is EXACTLY what you just did to Ron when you asked if he has dyslexia.
September 16, 2015 at 2:04 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Agent,
This is how I interpreted what you said:
In one post you said, “Ice caps are growing on both poles and we are shortly going to be seeing Global Cooling before 2030. This doesn’t seem to fit the mantra that man is causing the earth to heat up.”, indicating that we are not experiencing the negative effects of global warming scientists have forecasted, if we do not reduce CO2 emissions.
On the other post you said, “They decided it was best to encourage Wind & Solar, Algae, Cow dung, Ethanol instead of further development of coal, oil & gas.” Encouraging alternatives to coal, oil & gas were the recommendations of the scientists as ways to reduce CO2 emissions and the mitigate the negative effects of global warming.
To put it all together, by increasing our reliance on alternative energy sources, we have reduced CO2 emissions and that is a significant reason why we are not experiencing the doomsday predictions of the scientists. This is what happens when smart people actually listen to other smart people and take the appropriate action..
That is called doing your own thinking and analyzing.
September 16, 2015 at 2:55 pm
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Agent,
You made 2 false statements:
1. “…we just went through the peak Hurricane season without “one” named storm, thanks to Global Warming.” Unless you meant more than one.
2. “Of course, all those companies who got the loans went belly up after “burning” through their loans…” Unless you have proof.
to me, one sign of being an adult is the ability to admit when you are wrong. i told Rosenblatt he was wrong when he said there were only 2 named storms in the atlantic this year, and he was man enough to admit his error.
agent has still not admitted he was wrong to claim that Progressive’s Flo is a real person. i do not see him being able to admit he was 100% wrong about there being no named storms this year. i really hope i am wrong and agent is willing to make a mea culpa
NO! I can’t help it if you don’t follow the news or just watch MSNBC or the Clinton News Network. We have seen all the stories on the Green Energy companies failing left and right for the past several years and leaving the taxpayers in the lurch for a failed agenda.
Please cite one storm that hit the US and caused damage. I am waiting Ron. It proves that Global Warming is the hoax we have been citing from the start. By the way, the Nobel Prize committee is now saying they made a mistake in awarding the prize to your hero that you voted for twice. In office 8 months, did nothing and they gave it to him anyway. What idiot leftists they are.
You said, “Of course, all those companies who got the loans went belly up after “burning” through their loans…” I have seen he stories about the few companies that failed,but not the story that they ALL failed. Please provide the source.
You said, “Hey Dave, did you see the article in today’s Town Hall that we just went through the peak Hurricane season without “one” named storm, thanks to Global Warming.” You said NOTHING about hitting the US and causing damage. I gave you chance to admit that you misspoke, but could not even do that.
See how I used your exact words and did not just interpret them to fit my argument?
I agree with the Nobel Prize committee. President Obama did nothing, and has done nothing since to earn the Nobel Peace Prize.
See how I am willing to hold those for whom I voted accountable? Do you?
Ron, you have defended Obama for 7 years now while I have held him accountable for his agenda and terrible governance. That is the big difference. Wow, it sure took a long time for you to wake up, didn’t it?
Are you going to admit you were wrong or, at least, that you misspoke?
I have not defended President Obama. Just pointed out that much of your criticism are unfounded.
I asked you a simple question, when have you held people you voted accountable? Or are they all as perfect as you?
September 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Ron, you have been in the forefront of all Obama defenders on this blog ever since he was elected the first time. You just won’t own up to your terrible decision to vote for him “twice”. There is an old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It definitely applies to you. Early on, you should have recognized him for what he was and currently is, a Progressive Socialist with an leftist agenda. Apparently, you agreed with him or you would have been outraged after four years and voted against him the second time. The country is mired in Socialist dogma put out by him and his minions. Wake up and own up.
Business-wise, anytime you can privatize something the government is trying to do will make it better. If it is private, then this is someone’s money and it will be spent more wisely. The government operates as if it has an unlimited supply of money, especially this president’s terms.
We should all demand to know how this program got into debt $14 billion.
The debt of the NFIP was caused by 5 major coastal storms in one year 2005 on the East Coast. Only 4% of flood policies are subsidised but they are concentrated in the older East coast communities that were built before the program and it’s elevation requirements, were developed. The NFIP is but one part of a flood plain management program that restricts building and rebuilding in the SFHA, something no private company can do.
No, a private company can’t restrict building and rebuilding. However, a company can charge an actuarially sound rate, which could be a deterrent to building & rebuilding.
Just because insurance is available doesn’t mean something should be built there. If consumers have no consequences for building in a flood plain, then they will continue to do so.
When people make decisions on whether to build or not based on the true costs and consequences of those decisions, they are much less likley to make bad choices.
Exactly.
Hey Dave, did you see the article in today’s Town Hall that we just went through the peak Hurricane season without “one” named storm, thanks to Global Warming. That hasn’t happened in almost 4 decades. Ice caps are growing on both poles and we are shortly going to be seeing Global Cooling before 2030. This doesn’t seem to fit the mantra that man is causing the earth to heat up. My guess is that Lake Michigan will freeze over again this winter.
please stop spreading false information. you make yourself look foolish when you keep saying the same lies over and over even though you have been proven wrong dozens of times
Hurricane Danny and Hurricane Fred occurred in the Atlantic this year, Agent.
I guess technically you’re right – there wasn’t “one” named storm this year, there were two!!
actually rosenblatt, there were two named hurricanes this year but there were actually 8 names storms in the atlantic in 2015
I stand corrected – I was wrong to say there were only 2 named storms in the Atlantic this year when there were 2 named hurricanes and 8 named storms. My mistake.
The NFIP is a FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. You can’t get insurance at ANY price unless you adhere to the bulding restrictions on the SFHA. Communities are ALREADY built. Our flood maps in NYC are expanding (and who in the private industry will be doing this by-the-by?). Once a municipality joins the NFIP, bulding codes REQUIRE ALL FUTURE STURUCTURE to be reslient (usually meanihg elevated). The 4% problem is not with beach-front luxury homes, but from Balitmore to Boston with coastal neighborhoods. These are not people ‘deciding’ to build – WE’RE HERE. Flood insurance is susidised because ‘actuarially sound risk rates’ (and the NFIP rating sysrtem is VERY questionable) are unaffordable to the working class communities in the coastal neighborhoods. The ‘market’ is NEVER a free hand anyway as the bulding and real estate industries influence the bulding codes, and the government at all levels – including the federal – BW12 was ‘ammended’ by HFIAA when the realestate market in Tampa collapsed.
You do realize that private insurance is already available in some markets, don’t you?
Oh, and who’s bright idea was it to purchase land that is prone to flooding? Your argument is that the homes are already there, but that doesn’t mean you should have bought one.
You are whining to the wrong group of professionals. The majority of us don’t believe in subsidized flood insurance because we understand the underlying principle of insurance. You have to charge a rate commensurate with the risk.
‘Any market siaoutitn where the interests of investors run counter to the interests of society deserves a close look.’That’s tricky stuff, Roger? I see your point, and it’s sometimes true, for example anti-trust. But it’s not clear to me that cycles of reinsurance pricing (sometimes too cheap, sometimes too dear) are counter to society’s interests?The interests of investors are (generally) a decent return on investment, the decenter the better. I’m struggling, in any sector which doesn’t fall foul of the FTC (they are there for this sort of thing), to think of the sort of examples you mean.It’s surely not true in reinsurance and insurance – after all, Warren Buffett himself complained vigorously when the US government bailed out AIG thereby DEPRIVING Buffett’s companies from the profits from higher rates their prudence entitled them to when everone else had gone bust.:)More seriously, so long as the barriers to entry are not too difficult (which they may get in long-tail reinsurance) your sentence is a bit apple pie?
“However, a company can charge an actuarially sound rate, which could be a deterrent to building & rebuilding.”
This only works if there is a mortgage in place. Otherwise, the owner will simply avoid the insurance altogether.
And should suffer the consequences if something happens.
Do I think big brother would finally put his foot down and say “No more throwing good money after bad”? No, someone would whine and get their property rebuilt. I disagree with that policy, but my opinion doesn’t hold much power.
KY, in the recent California fires, about 2,000 homes burned because they were in high fire prone areas with a lot of brush and trees. This has gone on for a long time with Santa Ana winds and dry areas. These people keep rebuilding on the same spot only to have it happen again and again. It is about the same as rebuilding in high flood prone areas.
Jack you’re right. Private industry does just about everything better than government. It is a much better allocator of scarce resourses, it better allocates capital and better determines prices. And it is a better decision maker as to what businesses should exist and which should not. And if there are any ineffiencies in any market, it promptly eliminates them (absent government intervention). Putting this in private hands will more fairly determine prices which should be paid by those who purchase it.
Dave, the problem is that we have a government now who picks the winners and the losers. They decided it was best to encourage Wind & Solar, Algae, Cow dung, Ethanol instead of further development of coal, oil & gas. Of course, all those companies who got the loans went belly up after “burning” through their loans and how is the country better off for it? EPA has basically hamstrung industry for 7 years now. Time for them to go.
By all means turn all of it over to the insurance industry. But they want to mandate insurance? I thought that was socialism. And they need to understand that there can be no government backing or government reinsurance. And they will have to keep prices within a reasonable level compared to today’s pricing.
Who ever said anything about keeping prices reasonable compared to today’s pricing? We’re talking about market based pricing not interfered with by government regulators whatever those prices may be to help people make rational decisions about where and where not to build. You;re talking Socialism again Comrade. I want people to be priced out of places they shouldn’t build. I guess that a concept socialists don’t understand.
Dave, I agree that Flood should be privatized as long as they have the capital to pay large wide scale losses. We, the taxpayers shouldn’t reward people to re-build in flood prone areas over and over. That has been going on for a long time. NFIP is a typical government bureaucracy which is inefficient, wasteful and not very responsive in times of crisis.
What happened when Biggers-Waters attempted to establish actuarially sound pricing? Communities went berserk and Congress backtracked and rolled back rates with the Homeowners Flood Insurance Affordability Act. Insurance companies aren’t going to be in business very long if they don’t maintain sound pricing. I too think people should be kept from building in places they shouldn’t. But most of this market is for existing property. And why shouldn’t flood insurance be subsidized. We subsidize entire states, the roads we drive on, the energy and food we use, our communications, etc.
I’m confused. You said that there can be no government backing or government reinsurance. Then you respond to a response with why not subsidize. So what is your position exactly?
It was rolled back because politicians are more concerned with re-election than doing what is best for the country.
“And why shouldn’t flood insurance be subsidized…?”
Because it is more economically efficient to avoid “risks” that are actually certainties over long enough periods of time.
Existing property in flood plains should be abandoned over long periods of time… decades … by not rebuilding or fixing damaged or decaying structures. No new building in flood plains should be allowed. Parks could be made on such land.
the banks who own the collateral (homes & business) will never accept high rates, it stifles building in high risk places like the coast. And it’s the 1% that builds in high risk areas. Only way to privatize is if Gov guarantees it. There are no capitalist any more.
Wrong, there are millions upon millions of people who build and live on the coasts or around rivers or lakes in high risk areas, not just the 1%ers.
Interesting that in one post, Agent points out that we are not experiencing the negative effects that scientists warned us about if we do not change. Then, in another post, he points out some of the recommended changes have been implemented.
Your reading skills still need to be improved Ron. You should ask yourself why you always read things backward. Do you have dyslexia? My post was a criticism of Global Warming freaks who think the world should spend $80 Trillion to reduce C02 emissions 1% in hopes of reducing the average temperature .1%.
Agent,
What’s with the insults? I thought we agreed to stop.
I asked a simple question Ron. Why do you chose to interpret whatever I say backwards from what I mean? Other than Confused and you, most others on the blog seem to know what I mean.
Agent, do you have less intelligence than a 2 year old child? that is a simple question and if you take that as an insult, please realize that is EXACTLY what you just did to Ron when you asked if he has dyslexia.
Agent,
This is how I interpreted what you said:
In one post you said, “Ice caps are growing on both poles and we are shortly going to be seeing Global Cooling before 2030. This doesn’t seem to fit the mantra that man is causing the earth to heat up.”, indicating that we are not experiencing the negative effects of global warming scientists have forecasted, if we do not reduce CO2 emissions.
On the other post you said, “They decided it was best to encourage Wind & Solar, Algae, Cow dung, Ethanol instead of further development of coal, oil & gas.” Encouraging alternatives to coal, oil & gas were the recommendations of the scientists as ways to reduce CO2 emissions and the mitigate the negative effects of global warming.
To put it all together, by increasing our reliance on alternative energy sources, we have reduced CO2 emissions and that is a significant reason why we are not experiencing the doomsday predictions of the scientists. This is what happens when smart people actually listen to other smart people and take the appropriate action..
That is called doing your own thinking and analyzing.
Agent,
You made 2 false statements:
1. “…we just went through the peak Hurricane season without “one” named storm, thanks to Global Warming.” Unless you meant more than one.
2. “Of course, all those companies who got the loans went belly up after “burning” through their loans…” Unless you have proof.
Care to make any retractions?
to me, one sign of being an adult is the ability to admit when you are wrong. i told Rosenblatt he was wrong when he said there were only 2 named storms in the atlantic this year, and he was man enough to admit his error.
agent has still not admitted he was wrong to claim that Progressive’s Flo is a real person. i do not see him being able to admit he was 100% wrong about there being no named storms this year. i really hope i am wrong and agent is willing to make a mea culpa
to steal your comment from another article, Ron – it’s amazing how Agent disappears when he’s proven wrong
NO! I can’t help it if you don’t follow the news or just watch MSNBC or the Clinton News Network. We have seen all the stories on the Green Energy companies failing left and right for the past several years and leaving the taxpayers in the lurch for a failed agenda.
Please cite one storm that hit the US and caused damage. I am waiting Ron. It proves that Global Warming is the hoax we have been citing from the start. By the way, the Nobel Prize committee is now saying they made a mistake in awarding the prize to your hero that you voted for twice. In office 8 months, did nothing and they gave it to him anyway. What idiot leftists they are.
Agent,
You said, “Of course, all those companies who got the loans went belly up after “burning” through their loans…” I have seen he stories about the few companies that failed,but not the story that they ALL failed. Please provide the source.
You said, “Hey Dave, did you see the article in today’s Town Hall that we just went through the peak Hurricane season without “one” named storm, thanks to Global Warming.” You said NOTHING about hitting the US and causing damage. I gave you chance to admit that you misspoke, but could not even do that.
See how I used your exact words and did not just interpret them to fit my argument?
I agree with the Nobel Prize committee. President Obama did nothing, and has done nothing since to earn the Nobel Peace Prize.
See how I am willing to hold those for whom I voted accountable? Do you?
Ron, you have defended Obama for 7 years now while I have held him accountable for his agenda and terrible governance. That is the big difference. Wow, it sure took a long time for you to wake up, didn’t it?
Agent,
Are you going to admit you were wrong or, at least, that you misspoke?
I have not defended President Obama. Just pointed out that much of your criticism are unfounded.
I asked you a simple question, when have you held people you voted accountable? Or are they all as perfect as you?
Ron, you have been in the forefront of all Obama defenders on this blog ever since he was elected the first time. You just won’t own up to your terrible decision to vote for him “twice”. There is an old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. It definitely applies to you. Early on, you should have recognized him for what he was and currently is, a Progressive Socialist with an leftist agenda. Apparently, you agreed with him or you would have been outraged after four years and voted against him the second time. The country is mired in Socialist dogma put out by him and his minions. Wake up and own up.