I’m against farm and oil subsidies in principle, BUT for those who support them and not flood insurance subsidies, I would assume they would say “crop and oil subsidies go to benefit industries that benefit people, while flood insurance subsidies encourage bad building practices.”
“Chief among the sticking points is a Republican-led effort to cut the subsidies, something that experts say would be consistent with the message in the National Climate Assessment released on Nov. 23.”
So tell me again who the Deniers really are.
By the way. The Scary Monster story presented in the media about the National Climate Assessment was virtually fact free. The report actually projected the added global costs of climate change several decades from now would be $510 billion, using some worst-case assumptions about inaction addressing greenhouse gases.
How does that compare? Try a low estimate for global GDP decades from now of 60 trillion. (Right. .08% is the cost to address Climate Change.) In the words of Insurance Journal’s headline “DIRE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES!”
Scary monster? Fear is a conservative tactic. Being a good steward of the planet is a strategy of caring for the living organism we inhabit for the future of humanity and any lifeforms thereafter. Do you let your children pour a bunch of junk food down their throats all day? Or, do you try and actually nurture them? The planet is living and needs nourishment, too. We as a human society are hellbent on poisoning it.
Conservatives live in the real world where there are finite limits to anything, including the amount of money you can suck out of poor and middle class people to pay for fantasies like “stopping” Climate Change.
Especially since the threat is so over-blown by you scaredy-cat lefties anyway.
Your hyperbole and Straw Man arguments fail you. No one supports poisoning the planet or feeding junk food to their children. Hyperbolic claims you make, such as ‘hellbent on poisoning it (Earth), show you have no substantive support for your position. Finally, fear is a tactic of the weak. Facts are a tool of the strong, free, and intelligent. Conservatives use facts to dispel the Climate Warming Hoaxers False Claims, the latter being based on censored data and biased models that cannot properly assign a ‘base level’ temperature. There is no base level temperature because the Earth’s climate is dynamic, not static.
Let’s face it, everyone should have flood insurance given everyone is in a flood zone, right? Let’s mandate flood coverage on every home with a loan on it. The tax payer is already paying for the high hazard houses anyway.
Hey if Obamacare fixed health insurance, why can’t we fix flood the same way?
If I owned a bank or mortgage company, I certainly would require all loans to have flood policies, regardless of zone. May initially affect loan volume, from a competitive perspective, but other lenders would eventually catch-up. The good news is that Maxine Waters will find a great solution.
While I might agree that everyone should have flood insurance, I’m frankly okay with self-insuring (or no-insuring) where the homeowner owns it free and clear. Just recognize that I as a taxpayer am not taking on the obligation to pay them anything when the loss occurs. If there’s a mortgage lender involved, then they have good reason to expect flood insurance to protect their interest.
I assume the /sarc switch is on for your last comment about health insurance.
Carrier- you are correct, health ins is screwed up. Actually the whole comment was sarcasm given the government doesn’t have a single program that does not run in the red by billions of dollars a year.
Now that more and more carriers are beginning to rate by peril, just remove the flood exclusion from all property policies and apply the actuarial sound rate for the flood exposure of the insured premises?
Ron – policies have been peril based for years. You add or delete a peril the premium goes up or down, example Earthquake. Insurance departments will not allow them to take the actuarial sound rate for flood on a given location (insured premises).
“why limit it to only homes with loans” ? Because if there is no loan it’s their house, you want to force someone to buy a product? Like health ins…that worked out well.
How do you add and delete perils from an all perils policy?
I said “rate by peril”, which is significantly different from peril based. If you rate by peril, a building in a high risk flood zone may be less exposed to a different peril, such as fire or wind. That would facilitate the spreading of risk and encourage states to approve actuarial sound rates.
I did not say all property needs to be insured. Just that those that are, should have flood coverage. How else would you reach your stated goal of, “everyone should have flood insurance given everyone is in a flood zone”?
Ron- “all peril” policies already have exclusions in them…like flood…earthquake…etc.
I add earthquake to an HO5 “all peril” policy by endorsement.
By the way I hate the term “all peril” because to me that indicates “all”. It’s not “all” but I digress.
December 5, 2018 at 3:33 pm
Jack says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Jack said that, sorry. ^
December 6, 2018 at 9:02 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
I understand how exclusions and buybacks work, but how do we find a way to get the government out of the flood insurance business and allow private insurers to rate properly? We all know that comes from spreading of risk, which means risks that are not as readily exposed need to subsidize those where there is a greater risk. If every property put into the pool, since, as you said, “everyone is in a flood zone”, then product managers and actuaries could work together to get approval for proper rates. You could even incorporate flood deductibles to reduce exposure and premiums.
I’m against farm and oil subsidies in principle, BUT for those who support them and not flood insurance subsidies, I would assume they would say “crop and oil subsidies go to benefit industries that benefit people, while flood insurance subsidies encourage bad building practices.”
From the article:
“Chief among the sticking points is a Republican-led effort to cut the subsidies, something that experts say would be consistent with the message in the National Climate Assessment released on Nov. 23.”
So tell me again who the Deniers really are.
By the way. The Scary Monster story presented in the media about the National Climate Assessment was virtually fact free. The report actually projected the added global costs of climate change several decades from now would be $510 billion, using some worst-case assumptions about inaction addressing greenhouse gases.
How does that compare? Try a low estimate for global GDP decades from now of 60 trillion. (Right. .08% is the cost to address Climate Change.) In the words of Insurance Journal’s headline “DIRE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES!”
Scary monster? Fear is a conservative tactic. Being a good steward of the planet is a strategy of caring for the living organism we inhabit for the future of humanity and any lifeforms thereafter. Do you let your children pour a bunch of junk food down their throats all day? Or, do you try and actually nurture them? The planet is living and needs nourishment, too. We as a human society are hellbent on poisoning it.
Conservatives live in the real world where there are finite limits to anything, including the amount of money you can suck out of poor and middle class people to pay for fantasies like “stopping” Climate Change.
Especially since the threat is so over-blown by you scaredy-cat lefties anyway.
cap- “Fear is a conservative tactic.”???? really, smoking crack this early are you?
Your hyperbole and Straw Man arguments fail you. No one supports poisoning the planet or feeding junk food to their children. Hyperbolic claims you make, such as ‘hellbent on poisoning it (Earth), show you have no substantive support for your position. Finally, fear is a tactic of the weak. Facts are a tool of the strong, free, and intelligent. Conservatives use facts to dispel the Climate Warming Hoaxers False Claims, the latter being based on censored data and biased models that cannot properly assign a ‘base level’ temperature. There is no base level temperature because the Earth’s climate is dynamic, not static.
Let’s face it, everyone should have flood insurance given everyone is in a flood zone, right? Let’s mandate flood coverage on every home with a loan on it. The tax payer is already paying for the high hazard houses anyway.
Hey if Obamacare fixed health insurance, why can’t we fix flood the same way?
If I owned a bank or mortgage company, I certainly would require all loans to have flood policies, regardless of zone. May initially affect loan volume, from a competitive perspective, but other lenders would eventually catch-up. The good news is that Maxine Waters will find a great solution.
SWFL- I don’t think other lenders would. All they want to do is sell the loan, I see it every day. Maxine- lmao
While I might agree that everyone should have flood insurance, I’m frankly okay with self-insuring (or no-insuring) where the homeowner owns it free and clear. Just recognize that I as a taxpayer am not taking on the obligation to pay them anything when the loss occurs. If there’s a mortgage lender involved, then they have good reason to expect flood insurance to protect their interest.
I assume the /sarc switch is on for your last comment about health insurance.
Carrier- you are correct, health ins is screwed up. Actually the whole comment was sarcasm given the government doesn’t have a single program that does not run in the red by billions of dollars a year.
Why limit to only homes with loans?
Now that more and more carriers are beginning to rate by peril, just remove the flood exclusion from all property policies and apply the actuarial sound rate for the flood exposure of the insured premises?
Ron – policies have been peril based for years. You add or delete a peril the premium goes up or down, example Earthquake. Insurance departments will not allow them to take the actuarial sound rate for flood on a given location (insured premises).
“why limit it to only homes with loans” ? Because if there is no loan it’s their house, you want to force someone to buy a product? Like health ins…that worked out well.
Jack,
How do you add and delete perils from an all perils policy?
I said “rate by peril”, which is significantly different from peril based. If you rate by peril, a building in a high risk flood zone may be less exposed to a different peril, such as fire or wind. That would facilitate the spreading of risk and encourage states to approve actuarial sound rates.
I did not say all property needs to be insured. Just that those that are, should have flood coverage. How else would you reach your stated goal of, “everyone should have flood insurance given everyone is in a flood zone”?
Ron- “all peril” policies already have exclusions in them…like flood…earthquake…etc.
I add earthquake to an HO5 “all peril” policy by endorsement.
By the way I hate the term “all peril” because to me that indicates “all”. It’s not “all” but I digress.
Jack said that, sorry. ^
I understand how exclusions and buybacks work, but how do we find a way to get the government out of the flood insurance business and allow private insurers to rate properly? We all know that comes from spreading of risk, which means risks that are not as readily exposed need to subsidize those where there is a greater risk. If every property put into the pool, since, as you said, “everyone is in a flood zone”, then product managers and actuaries could work together to get approval for proper rates. You could even incorporate flood deductibles to reduce exposure and premiums.