It’s open enrollment season for Affordable Care Act health insurance! Here are 11 things you need to know.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
326
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

326 Views
Message 21 of 37

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

The "dumbo" part was, of course, childish. Both Presidents saw the problem but approached the solution differently. The Obama solution was based on the theory that all problems are under the control of the Central Government. The Trump approach is more of, "Do whatever you want but don't expect someone else to pay for your mistakes".

 

I am all for local governments designating flood zones and a national law that says that if you opt to build there, the insurance companies and federal resources will not cover any losses incurred. Also needed would be legislation that protects the insurance companies complying with that policy from the "sharks".


Trump cancelled the Obama EO before it could come into effect in order to speed up building processes.  Obama’s order would have required federally funded structures to be built at one of three elevations: the level that waters would reach in a flood that had a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in a year, 2 to 3 feet above the federal requirement, or at a level to be devised based on climate science projections..

 

This feels to me like Trump wants to build fast and cheap while Obama wanted to take into account actual conditions on the ground. 

 

In its Aug. 29 letter to Trump urging him to rethink his decision, the Association of State Floodplain Managers called on the president to "rebuild Houston smarter."

Chad Berginnis, the association's executive director, noted that federal funding for rebuilding of communities hit by Hurricane Sandy in 2013 came with strings attached - new structures had to be elevated a foot (31 cm) higher than the normal federal standard.

 

Seems like a logical approach to me. 

 


There are many details that neither you nor I can properly evaluate. Plus no matter who recommends what or who accepts what recommendation you can be sure that the claim of corruption will get into the picture.

 

I'm gonna stick with my view of if you want to "live dangerously" go for it - but don't expect someone else to pay when things go wrong.

 

On the other hand, you mentioned "federally funded structures". If they are government buildings, the government can make it's own decisions. If they are private structures - back to "it's your problem not mine".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
326
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
359
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

359 Views
Message 22 of 37

@Richva wrote:

@afisher wrote:

 

I don't think it got your comment.  


   See below:   :-)

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
359
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
357
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

357 Views
Message 23 of 37

@afisher wrote:

 

I don't think it got your comment.  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
357
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
338
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

338 Views
Message 24 of 37

@Richva wrote:

@jfpinlvn wrote:

@Richva wrote:

 


I'll go one step further, Rich. You should not be able to get subsidized federal insurance for anything.


I assume that is a slam to the ACA subsidies. I appreciate that you want to strip all those people of their health insurance so they are dependent upon hospital emergency rooms but it will be far cheaper to keep the poor healthy rather than treat them as was done in the past. The alternate approach is to go to a Canadian style healthcare.  Statistics have shown us that is a much more cost effective program at lower cost than our "free market" program or the ACA.  

 

Getting rid of all subsidies would involve taxing employer paid healthcare benefits as income.  We would have to get rid of crop insurance, that might not be a bad thing as that program has some problems too.  


    I will assume that the no-subisdy for anything includeds OIL / Gas / Medicare, esp. Part D...right?     And do away with COLA for pensioners.    The GOP  / Libertarian Plan:   Get old and Die quickly.

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
338
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
335
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

335 Views
Message 25 of 37

@rk9152 wrote:

The "dumbo" part was, of course, childish. Both Presidents saw the problem but approached the solution differently. The Obama solution was based on the theory that all problems are under the control of the Central Government. The Trump approach is more of, "Do whatever you want but don't expect someone else to pay for your mistakes".

 

I am all for local governments designating flood zones and a national law that says that if you opt to build there, the insurance companies and federal resources will not cover any losses incurred. Also needed would be legislation that protects the insurance companies complying with that policy from the "sharks".


Trump cancelled the Obama EO before it could come into effect in order to speed up building processes.  Obama’s order would have required federally funded structures to be built at one of three elevations: the level that waters would reach in a flood that had a 0.2 percent chance of occurring in a year, 2 to 3 feet above the federal requirement, or at a level to be devised based on climate science projections..

 

This feels to me like Trump wants to build fast and cheap while Obama wanted to take into account actual conditions on the ground. 

 

In its Aug. 29 letter to Trump urging him to rethink his decision, the Association of State Floodplain Managers called on the president to "rebuild Houston smarter."

Chad Berginnis, the association's executive director, noted that federal funding for rebuilding of communities hit by Hurricane Sandy in 2013 came with strings attached - new structures had to be elevated a foot (31 cm) higher than the normal federal standard.

 

Seems like a logical approach to me. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
335
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
309
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

309 Views
Message 26 of 37

@CriticalThinking wrote:

President Obama recognized this problem and made it far more difficult to build in a flood plain. Unfortunately, dumbo Trump recently wrote a new Executive Order, negating President Obama's attempt at sanity. Of course our Trump loyalists praised their hero for that foolish move. You wouldn't expect them to use logic and/or criticize their hero, would you?


The "dumbo" part was, of course, childish. Both Presidents saw the problem but approached the solution differently. The Obama solution was based on the theory that all problems are under the control of the Central Government. The Trump approach is more of, "Do whatever you want but don't expect someone else to pay for your mistakes".

 

I am all for local governments designating flood zones and a national law that says that if you opt to build there, the insurance companies and federal resources will not cover any losses incurred. Also needed would be legislation that protects the insurance companies complying with that policy from the "sharks".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
309
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
323
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

323 Views
Message 27 of 37

@GailL1 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

 

Flood plains are called flood plains for a reason, sea level rise, climate change, and more frequent and stronger storms are going to change how often and how badly flood plains go under water.

 

Areas not considered flood plains today might become flood plains in the future.

 

The best solution is to just not rebuild in flood plains, if the owners have flood insurance just buy them out and tell them to move to higher ground.

 

Don't issue building permits for dwellings in flood plains, as existing buildings are destroyed don't replace them in a flood plain.

 

 


The Flood plain maps are constantly changing due to changes in land use.

What might be perfectly fine in year 2000 is now a flood plain since developments - both residential and commercial - have created so much more impervious surfaces and the water has to go somewhere.  Even with planned storm water direction, it can only take so much water.

 

If ANY area got as much water as this area of Texas got in such a short period of time, it would be flooded.

 

We have had areas in metro Atlanta and rural Georgia where it was not even designated as a flood plain nor was it even close to a water source, flood from many inches of rain in a short period of time.  15+ inches if I remember correctly.

  

Perhaps you should add into your rules of construction, limiting the amount of impervious area.  Or what about increasing the lot size of homes to one every 3-acres - that ought to keep housing "affordable".  HA!!!

 

Why not just do away with the federal Flood Insurance Program - then either people or commercial establishments will have to rebuild on their own or move on, hopefully to another area perhaps not so prone to floods.

OR make the premiums MORE - that happened not too long ago and people screamed.  You do know that unless there is a mortgage, insurance of any kind to protect a structure, isn't really required - it is a preference if there is no mortgage.

 

Perhaps we should just close down New Orleans which is actually below sea level.  

 

OR perhaps EVERYBODY should have to have flood insurance - premiums based on likelihood.  But again, if it rains in feet rather than inches in a short period of time, the water will rise.  

 

How many here have flood insurance?  I do, but living on a slanted down creek lot, with house way above the elevation and with a full 2500 square ft.  walk-out basement with a poured foundation and good landscaping around it, I can only hope I am covered.

 

Would your home be safe if you got 36" or more of rain in a matter of days?

  


You are conflating two things. I would bet that 90% of the people in Houston will not be reimbursed for their losses because, in general, you only buy flood insurance if you are in an existing flood plain. If the river flow changes, you SHOULD buy flood insurance but how many do?  

 

You raise an interesting point about New Orleans but do not forget that was a man made disaster with levee wall failures. 

 

How many times should your tax dollars be used to rebuild a home that was originally built in a known flood plain? Six? Seven? As many as it takes until the river or ocean gets tired of destroying it?

 

I live in New Mexico and we have communities with arsenic in their water but my tax dollars are going to rebuild million dollar homes on the ocean that have flooded several times.  I just think we need different priorities. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
323
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
307
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

307 Views
Message 28 of 37

@Richva wrote:

@jfpinlvn wrote:


I'll go one step further, Rich. You should not be able to get subsidized federal insurance for anything.


I assume that is a slam to the ACA subsidies. I appreciate that you want to strip all those people of their health insurance so they are dependent upon hospital emergency rooms but it will be far cheaper to keep the poor healthy rather than treat them as was done in the past. The alternate approach is to go to a Canadian style healthcare.  Statistics have shown us that is a much more cost effective program at lower cost than our "free market" program or the ACA.  

 

Getting rid of all subsidies would involve taxing employer paid healthcare benefits as income.  We would have to get rid of crop insurance, that might not be a bad thing as that program has some problems too.  


Off topic but in Australia, if you have "public" insurance you go to a "public" hospital.  

 

I'm all in for taxing employers and employees for their health care premiums which are in actuality only wages in another form.  

 

Hey, that would even help out Medicare and Social Security too !  Win-Win.

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
307
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
308
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

308 Views
Message 29 of 37

@gruffstuff wrote:

 

Flood plains are called flood plains for a reason, sea level rise, climate change, and more frequent and stronger storms are going to change how often and how badly flood plains go under water.

 

Areas not considered flood plains today might become flood plains in the future.

 

The best solution is to just not rebuild in flood plains, if the owners have flood insurance just buy them out and tell them to move to higher ground.

 

Don't issue building permits for dwellings in flood plains, as existing buildings are destroyed don't replace them in a flood plain.

 

 


The Flood plain maps are constantly changing due to changes in land use.

What might be perfectly fine in year 2000 is now a flood plain since developments - both residential and commercial - have created so much more impervious surfaces and the water has to go somewhere.  Even with planned storm water direction, it can only take so much water.

 

If ANY area got as much water as this area of Texas got in such a short period of time, it would be flooded.

 

We have had areas in metro Atlanta and rural Georgia where it was not even designated as a flood plain nor was it even close to a water source, flood from many inches of rain in a short period of time.  15+ inches if I remember correctly.

  

Perhaps you should add into your rules of construction, limiting the amount of impervious area.  Or what about increasing the lot size of homes to one every 3-acres - that ought to keep housing "affordable".  HA!!!

 

Why not just do away with the federal Flood Insurance Program - then either people or commercial establishments will have to rebuild on their own or move on, hopefully to another area perhaps not so prone to floods.

OR make the premiums MORE - that happened not too long ago and people screamed.  You do know that unless there is a mortgage, insurance of any kind to protect a structure, isn't really required - it is a preference if there is no mortgage.

 

Perhaps we should just close down New Orleans which is actually below sea level.  

 

OR perhaps EVERYBODY should have to have flood insurance - premiums based on likelihood.  But again, if it rains in feet rather than inches in a short period of time, the water will rise.  

 

How many here have flood insurance?  I do, but living on a slanted down creek lot, with house way above the elevation and with a full 2500 square ft.  walk-out basement with a poured foundation and good landscaping around it, I can only hope I am covered.

 

Would your home be safe if you got 36" or more of rain in a matter of days?

 

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
308
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
306
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

306 Views
Message 30 of 37

@jfpinlvn wrote:

@Richva wrote:

If you build or rebuild a house in a flood plane, you should NOT be able to get subsidized federal flood insurance. Period. 

 

 

http://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2017/08/27/flood-insurance-splits-gop-spurs-bipartis...


I'll go one step further, Rich. You should not be able to get subsidized federal insurance for anything.


I assume that is a slam to the ACA subsidies. I appreciate that you want to strip all those people of their health insurance so they are dependent upon hospital emergency rooms but it will be far cheaper to keep the poor healthy rather than treat them as was done in the past. The alternate approach is to go to a Canadian style healthcare.  Statistics have shown us that is a much more cost effective program at lower cost than our "free market" program or the ACA.  

 

Getting rid of all subsidies would involve taxing employer paid healthcare benefits as income.  We would have to get rid of crop insurance, that might not be a bad thing as that program has some problems too.  

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
306
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Roundtable Discussion:
Ask questions and get advice from fellow entrepreneurs
Now through Nov. 22

Top Authors