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.)
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.
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.
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:
1
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.
Gorsuch – How is getting a Conservative Justice confirmed by a Senate with a Republican majority anything special? He received only 3 votes from Democrats, all from red states.
Severely decreased illegal immigrants entering the US. – I will give him credit for this
Firms abandoning plans to move mfg plants overseas. – I will give him credit for this. However, Carrier just announced more layoffs.
Capital, corporate and private, returning to the US. – Cite your source
Cuban trade restrictions about to be reinstated. – Not sure how this is considered winning. Sounds like it is more out of spite than any real benefit to the US
Abandoned the Paris Accord ‘agreement’ made by BHO – Sounds like it is more out of spite than any real benefit to the US
XL pipeline and coal energy related projects resumed. – I will give him credit for this. However, how many jobs have been created?
Vetting of immigrants from 6 foreign nations. – Nothing has changed. More importantly, none of the terrorist attacks would have been prevented if his policies had been implemented decades ago.
ISIS and ACA are heading toward a permanent ‘dirt nap’, accelerated by small steps taken by Congress and The WH – ISIS was already being depleted and the death of the PPACA may or may not be considered a win until we find out what actually replaces it. What we do know it is still the law of the land, so it cannot be considered a win.
The tax reform bill is a WIP, and cannot be placed in a accomplishment or failure column yet. – That is true, but he said, “I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my administration. … Middle class tax relief and simplification act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. … The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. … The middle class with family of two children will get basically approximately a 35% tax cut. … The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three. And tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%. And the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.” The current bill in the House does not meet this criteria.
GDP growth – very similar to what we saw same time last year.
UnE decreasing – also happened consistently during the last 7 years under the previous administration. Were you giving that president any credit?
While he has done some good things, it is an exaggeration to say we are doing so much winning we should be getting tired of it.
If you say you are tired of winning, that says more about how easily you get tired than the amount of winning.
@Ron; you don’t have the ‘vision’ to see the future results from some of the recently enacted changes. 10 months on the job will not be sufficient time to see results on hyuuuge government programs with hyuuuge degrees of inertia, such as economic development.
If you want to argue about Gorsuch being appointed by a Republican Senate being ‘no accomplishment’, go ahead… enjoy your rabbit hole discussion alone. The appointment wasn’t approved by ANY Democrats. That vote record can be used to replace Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 2 years…. or 6 years…. and used against the Dem Senators in their next re-election campaign.
“10 months on the job will not be sufficient time to see results on hyuuuge government programs with hyuuuge degrees of inertia, such as economic development.”
Agreed. So why do you keep saying we are winning if you do not even know the score? All you know is the game plan.
All you need to see about rational arguments, folks, is that Yogi puts ISIS and ACA together as things heading towards a dirt nap.
One of these things cuts the heads off of “infidels” and compels followers towards mass murder and destruction of history.
The other has provided access to health care to millions of Americans and expanded coverage to millions more.
…
Then again, all that “winning” is hilarious. So many signature pieces of legislation! So many major initiatives! Trump said it himself, his mere existence is the reason that the stock market is so high.
But, by all means, Yogi, provide us with some sources to back up your nebulous claims on the other stuff, because as much as you are grasping at straws for a victory, the stuff you are claiming is still outside of the realm of reality.
And calling embarrassing ourselves on the international stage via being the ONLY country in the world not agreeing to the Paris Accords a victory is right out of the GOP playbook. This after the Trump administration announced last week that that man-made causes are the only credible reasoning for global climate change. Good stuff.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
0
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:
0
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:
0
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:
0
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:
0
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?
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:
1
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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 :)
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.
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?
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.
“Polar was doing the sarcasm” Are you on the pot? How many pots have you smoked today?
There’s no sarcasm in Yogtard’s comment. Of sorry, I was using the actual definition of words, I apologize for word parsing
“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.
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.
GDP growth.
UnE decreasing.
Gorsuch – How is getting a Conservative Justice confirmed by a Senate with a Republican majority anything special? He received only 3 votes from Democrats, all from red states.
Severely decreased illegal immigrants entering the US. – I will give him credit for this
Firms abandoning plans to move mfg plants overseas. – I will give him credit for this. However, Carrier just announced more layoffs.
Capital, corporate and private, returning to the US. – Cite your source
Cuban trade restrictions about to be reinstated. – Not sure how this is considered winning. Sounds like it is more out of spite than any real benefit to the US
Abandoned the Paris Accord ‘agreement’ made by BHO – Sounds like it is more out of spite than any real benefit to the US
XL pipeline and coal energy related projects resumed. – I will give him credit for this. However, how many jobs have been created?
Vetting of immigrants from 6 foreign nations. – Nothing has changed. More importantly, none of the terrorist attacks would have been prevented if his policies had been implemented decades ago.
ISIS and ACA are heading toward a permanent ‘dirt nap’, accelerated by small steps taken by Congress and The WH – ISIS was already being depleted and the death of the PPACA may or may not be considered a win until we find out what actually replaces it. What we do know it is still the law of the land, so it cannot be considered a win.
The tax reform bill is a WIP, and cannot be placed in a accomplishment or failure column yet. – That is true, but he said, “I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my administration. … Middle class tax relief and simplification act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. … The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. … The middle class with family of two children will get basically approximately a 35% tax cut. … The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three. And tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%. And the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.” The current bill in the House does not meet this criteria.
GDP growth – very similar to what we saw same time last year.
UnE decreasing – also happened consistently during the last 7 years under the previous administration. Were you giving that president any credit?
While he has done some good things, it is an exaggeration to say we are doing so much winning we should be getting tired of it.
If you say you are tired of winning, that says more about how easily you get tired than the amount of winning.
@Ron; you don’t have the ‘vision’ to see the future results from some of the recently enacted changes. 10 months on the job will not be sufficient time to see results on hyuuuge government programs with hyuuuge degrees of inertia, such as economic development.
If you want to argue about Gorsuch being appointed by a Republican Senate being ‘no accomplishment’, go ahead… enjoy your rabbit hole discussion alone. The appointment wasn’t approved by ANY Democrats. That vote record can be used to replace Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 2 years…. or 6 years…. and used against the Dem Senators in their next re-election campaign.
“10 months on the job will not be sufficient time to see results on hyuuuge government programs with hyuuuge degrees of inertia, such as economic development.”
Agreed. So why do you keep saying we are winning if you do not even know the score? All you know is the game plan.
All you need to see about rational arguments, folks, is that Yogi puts ISIS and ACA together as things heading towards a dirt nap.
One of these things cuts the heads off of “infidels” and compels followers towards mass murder and destruction of history.
The other has provided access to health care to millions of Americans and expanded coverage to millions more.
…
Then again, all that “winning” is hilarious. So many signature pieces of legislation! So many major initiatives! Trump said it himself, his mere existence is the reason that the stock market is so high.
But, by all means, Yogi, provide us with some sources to back up your nebulous claims on the other stuff, because as much as you are grasping at straws for a victory, the stuff you are claiming is still outside of the realm of reality.
And calling embarrassing ourselves on the international stage via being the ONLY country in the world not agreeing to the Paris Accords a victory is right out of the GOP playbook. This after the Trump administration announced last week that that man-made causes are the only credible reasoning for global climate change. Good stuff.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Do many carriers want to remove the flood exclusion? I’m not convinced that they do, especially after the last few months.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.