Congress Prepares to Address Flood Insurance Overhaul Again

By Ginger Gibson | November 8, 2017

  • November 8, 2017 at 11:09 am
    PolarBeaRepeal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Here we go, again! Roll up your pants / pant suit cuffs! And I’m not referring to rising flood waters. I’m referring to the rising tide of lies/ mis-statements that will come out of Washington DC on the deficit in NFIP.

    (I’ll post more meaningful comments on this topic later today.)

    • November 8, 2017 at 12:04 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      How about we don’t claim people are lying and misstating things until, you know, people actually do it?

      Listen – I’m well aware there are many MANY people in our Government (Dem’s clearly included in that) who are untruthful and mislead folks when they make statements, but shouldn’t we wait until they do that before we claim it’s happening again on this topic?

      Example: Let’s say every day there is a bear attack in AK and someone dies every day. Let’s say this happened every day for 90 days.

      What your post is doing now is basically the same as saying on day 91, “Someone died from a bear attack today” when it hasn’t happened yet.

      WILL it? Most likely.

      HAS it? Nope, not yet.

      Let’s give the bears a chance :)

      • November 8, 2017 at 2:13 pm
        Agent says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        Rosenblatt, how about you taking some lessons understanding “sarcasm” before getting on Polar’s back. Don’t look now, but you are word parsing like a good Liberal usually does.

        • November 8, 2017 at 3:58 pm
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          Geez man, did I run over your family dog again? What’s with the attitude?

          “I’m referring to the rising tide of lies/ mis-statements that will come out of Washington DC on the deficit in NFIP.”

          That is not a sarcastic statement.

          And I already said I agree with him too, so relax pal.

          I just asked him shouldn’t we wait until someone actually lies before we start posting that people are lying about this topic?

          • November 9, 2017 at 12:15 pm
            Agent says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            So you think it is amusing to agree with a man before you criticize him? By the way, Polar was doing the sarcasm, not you.

          • November 9, 2017 at 1:13 pm
            Confused says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            “Polar was doing the sarcasm” Are you on the pot? How many pots have you smoked today?

        • November 13, 2017 at 6:30 pm
          UW says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 1

          There’s no sarcasm in Yogtard’s comment. Of sorry, I was using the actual definition of words, I apologize for word parsing

          • November 14, 2017 at 6:30 pm
            The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 1
            Thumb down 0

            “Of sorry”….

            What is the ‘actual definition’ of that phrase?

            I still contend there are multiple lies coming out of the mouths of Congressmen, both D and R, on this issue. Watch what actually is passed AFTER all the lies about what they intend to do for the good of The People and The NFIP Loss- leader Program.

      • November 9, 2017 at 9:02 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 1
        Thumb down 0

        The lies were made previously, and I expect them to continue. One such lie was that the deficit would be recouped, but Trump decided to forgive $16 Billion of the $24-ish Billion. WHY? So, what happens to the remaining $8B? It seems like the intent is to recoup it because Trump only forgave $16B instead of the $24-ish B.

        I can only guess that the intent to push the can down the road until 2022 is to avoid properly addressing the problem.

        Another potential lie is the promise to fund risk mitigation efforts, but as the National Wildlife Federation guy said, there is no written promise to use taxpayer money to do so. It is a potential lie to pledge to mitigate the risks by buying land and turning it over to municipalities but NOT put it into codified law.

        Some of the details are missing from the article, but it seems like Congress is unlikely to keep all of its promises to gradually replace the NFIP with private insurance by reducing it to a tiny subsidy program for only those risks which cannot be gradually or immediately mitigated.

        I can speculate on Congressional lies about NFIP on IJ comment pages. There is NO reason for my comment to be rejected/ censored because there is a foundation of lies and course of action changes by Congress upon which I can safely make such a projection.

  • November 8, 2017 at 1:24 pm
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 1

    Buy private flood people, better coverage and premiums. Expecting the Guberment to fix what they broke is a little insane these days.

    Kinda like gun control laws, make a new one they can’t or won’t enforce. The insanity.

    • November 8, 2017 at 2:04 pm
      Rosenblatt says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      The problem with your suggestion, Jack, is that Private Flood carriers are few and far between. In many states, you can only get flood coverage from the NIFP.

    • November 9, 2017 at 9:15 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      Jack; the government is part of the problem in ramping up private insurance writings. Local regulation is inconsistent, leading to some apprehension by national insurers to roll out a nation flood cover program. And risk mitigation efforts are insufficient, to date, largely due to a lack of government involvement in such.

      • November 9, 2017 at 3:11 pm
        Rosenblatt says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 1

        The only solution I see to that problem is to have a nationwide set of regulations pertaining to insurance that are the same across state lines, which we all know states are very reluctant to do for various financial reasons. Is there any other solution you see to the issue of national insurers being apprehensive about writing flood in all 50 states?

        • November 9, 2017 at 3:19 pm
          Ron says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          My solution is to remove the flood exclusion and allow insurers to rate by peril. That way, the insurance mechanism works and allows for the higher flood risks to pay a higher premium for that peril. This would also provide flood coverage for homes in areas with a very low risk of flood that may experience damage due to an extremely rare occurrence.

          I really do not see any other feasible solution.

          • November 9, 2017 at 4:13 pm
            Not-a-right-winger says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Do many carriers want to remove the flood exclusion? I’m not convinced that they do, especially after the last few months.

          • November 9, 2017 at 4:24 pm
            Rosenblatt says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Yeah, I tend to agree carriers do not want to remove the flood exclusion and write a policy with it since the high rates will likely turn customers away.

            …and that’s to say nothing of ensuring policies are spread out over a large enough distance that one storm won’t bankrupt the carrier (which is much harder to do for flood losses than it is for hail or tornadoes).

            I think it’s similar to High Risk Pools in Auto where a lot of carriers just won’t write those policies due to the potential exposure and will ‘outsource’ coverage to another entity (such as a states specific high risk pool, if it exists in that particular state).

            The thing about the NFIP is that rates aren’t appropriate to cover the exposure. I think a lot of people would forgo flood coverage if they were getting charged actuarial-sound premiums, but then you’d see a decrease in home ownership due to mortgage mandating flood coverage that the homeowner can’t afford. Kind of a lose-lose situation, IMO.

          • November 9, 2017 at 6:06 pm
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Remove the exclusion and a few insurers will pull out of certain geo zones, pronto.
            Think it through; would you take on risks in flood prone areas and dilute profits elsewhere?

          • November 13, 2017 at 8:30 am
            Ron says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Obviously all of the carriers would need to remove the exclusion. This would need to be a requirement to write anywhere in a state. This would also need to be a national movement.

            Polar,
            If you allow the carriers to charge actuarily sound rates, why would they leave? There is the old adage in insurance that there are no bad risks, just bad rates.

            If anyone else has a private market solution without forcing people and businesses to move, please provide.

          • November 14, 2017 at 6:35 pm
            The Night of the Living ACA Death Spiral says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            Yes, ALL insurers WOULD (have to) remove the exclusion from the only approved HO forms in each state.

            But NOT ALL insurers would remain in some zip codes or entire states where they currently have few PIF. Decreased competition isn’t a good thing unless the competitors abandoning a market are inefficient in risk selection and operational expenses.

        • November 10, 2017 at 8:15 am
          Rosenblatt says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 0
          Thumb down 0

          I agree Polar, but that still leaves my question unanswered: Is there any solution you see to the issue of national insurers being apprehensive about writing flood in all 50 states?

          • November 10, 2017 at 9:38 am
            PolarBeaRepeal says:
            Like or Dislike:
            Thumb up 0
            Thumb down 0

            The issue most likely creating apprehension is state regulators creating varying rules for private insurance of the flood peril, some more punitive than the other states. I assume that prevents many insurers from entering the market, which in turn prevents decreasing NFIP.

            I prefer a greatly reduced NFIP which would shrink over 50 years to writing NFIP coverage only those highly exposed risks remaining in flood prone areas due to an inability to relocate or abandon the location.

            The SOLUTION is an NAIC Model Bill that would be adopted by all states, and locked in for a reasonable time period; e.g. 25 years. The bill would promote private flood insurance by requiring risk mitigation efforts that must be planned and published by municipalities. Failure to carry out such mitigation, defined clearly by the bill, would enable private insurers to abandon the flood risk market after a reasonable run-off period; e.g. two years. NFIP would exist to renew private policies, albeit, with more restrictive coverage terms.

        • November 15, 2017 at 4:32 pm
          Agent says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 1
          Thumb down 0

          Rosenblatt, weren’t you one of the ones who were against selling Health Insurance across state lines to clean up the Obamacare mess? By the way, we don’t need any more regulations from the Federal Government. We are busy getting rid of all the harmful ones which came about in the prior 8 years.

  • November 8, 2017 at 6:04 pm
    Baxtor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    They need to discontinue the program. This is and never has been the Federal governments responsibility. If the states want to deal with it, they can. People don’t understand insurance. They think you pay in $1,000 for premium, that a $500,000 claim should be paid each and everytime with no questions asked. Then they complain the insurance companies are getting rick off of them. Let them figure it out. The President needs to set an end date to it, if it’s in his power. Say, the flood insurance program never was the Federal governments responsibility and the program will end on 1/1/19 at 12:01am.

    • November 10, 2017 at 9:42 am
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      The ideas you present are commonly accepted. The sticking point is the end date, proposed by many who watch Congress at every renewal date kick the can down the road.



Add a Comment

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

*

More News
More News Features