Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
229
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

229 Views
Message 11 of 37

@rk9152 wrote:

Agreed - it is not an immediate "A/B" decision. The ideal is to establish a goal and a plan to get there.


Yep. If you want to rebuild, you have to do so in a way that will prevent a recurrence. If that is impossible, you can can get reimimbursed up to the terms of the contract you have but can't get federally subsidized flood insurance. Period

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
229
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
221
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

221 Views
Message 12 of 37

@GailL1 wrote:

 


@Richva wrote:

. . . . 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. 


 

 

Somehow, I am getting the impression that you think flood insurance is like homeowners insurance - it is not.

 

Federal flood insurance coverage is capped at $250,000 per building and $100,000 for contents, though you can purchase policies with lower limits.

Depending upon what flood zone the house is in and your choice of deductible, the premiums are very high for this amount of coverage.

 

It does not cover everything especially in walk-out basements or detached garages.  

 

Consumer Reports just did a pretty good synopsis of the program.

Consumer Reports - What Flood Insurance Does and Does NOT Cover

 

Nobody gets a multimillion dollar house rebuilt with the National Flood Insurance Program.

 

I read in USA TODAY that the majority of homes destroyed by Hurricane Harvey were NOT in a designated flood plain.  A lot of the damage was also done by wind and rain.  

 

The he levees in NO would be no match for Hurricanes dropping 3' + of rain in a short period of time.  Katrina did not sit around spinning and dropping continuous rain over NO in 2005.

 

So New Mexico has some arsenic in the water - some of it is natural, I am sure, originating in rocks - We have radon gas where I live because of the underground granite - tributaries of Stone Mountain.

 

Nobody can force people to get flood insurance if they don't have a mortgage - nobody can force people to have even regular homeowners insurance or as in Florida - hurricane insurance if the real estate is owned by them exclusively.

 

In fact, some will be shocked that their regular homeowners policy isn't covering them.

 

 

 

 


You are correct flood insurance is not like homeowners insurance. Flood Insurance is like the high risk pools you find in health insurance. They are not really insurance but a govt. program to help people. In this type of insurance the govt. puts money in to pay claims since it is not possible to collect enough money from premiums and that is why Insurance Cos. will not offer it on their own. In other words the thing you are trying to insure is uninsurable. Now if flood was a required part of all homeowners insurance it would be rather cheap premium wise as the risk pool would be large and all buying would be giving a little for it. Most people would not use it as there are not that many living in flood zones. We all would save money in the long run as the costs when the flood hits would be less govt. money needed. Your support article  does not cover the full subject and is of no value as you are trying to use it.

 

Most people in Texas did not purchase flood insurance, and that includes the people living in flood plains. A lot of the homes in the Houston area were flooded when they released water from the dams to save the downtown area. You save one area and destroy another as you feel one in more important. I have a feeling few down from the dams had it, and did not think they would ever be flooded. (If it was in homeowners policy no problem )

 

You might be correct about NO but we made the decision we want NO so that means we accept the extra costs. Now if flood insurance was included in all Homeowners insurance the total cost would have been less. Keep in mind that in Houston they were given a plan of what needed to be done to keep the flooding down by the Army E. They did nothing. They did not want to spend the money so now a lot more will be spent, and guess what most of that will come from all the Taxpayers, not the Texas taxpayers.

 

You are correct right now you can not force people to buy flood insurance. To solve the problem that has to change. Everyone must buy it (include it as part of homeowners insurance nation wide) and you solve that problem. There is not such thing as flood insurance. It is a govt. program to give money to people who have suffered.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
221
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
225
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

225 Views
Message 13 of 37

    Some seem to forget that the Mississippi / Missouri Rivers flooded in the past few years.    A nuclear energy plant was a risk of being flooded.    Are those demanding no building going to pay to have that plant relocated?   (reminder, it requires a huge amount of water to keep the system cooled).  

    Recently  a situation in FL, where people built around a geographical bowl, which due to changes in the weather pattern ( aka global warming) there are more frequent flooding events.

 

     Other parts of Florida are also flooding because of weather pattern and rising ocean levels and warming of those oceans. 

 

     The caveat that was pointed out,   a person is not required to have flood insurance IF you don't have a mortgage.    Think about that....the idea that there are not flooding risks all across the nation and so some don't want to pay for others, is perhaps not well thought thru.    Could your state afford to rebuild infrastructure after a massive destructive weather/water event?

 

     Much will be made about the deficit of the Flood Insurance Program.     That is a great talking point that those who don't believe that everyone in this country should help their nation in times of national emergency - but it is afterall, just a paper debt that could be easily erased.   

 

     Do the complainers care that much of the Oil refined in the US were shut down due to flooding - should they be forced to move to 'higher ground"...how much are you willing to pay for gasoline or natural gas?  

 

      We do not live in a perfect world, there are always trade-offs.    Legislator's who propose knee-jerk bs. because of this disaster should be removed from office via the electoral process, as they don't give a hoot about anything in this country, except their next election.    Their vision is short and will not solve anything.   (the perfect example: http://www.governing.com/topics/education/Abstinence-Only-Education-Makes-Schools-Fearful-of-Impleme...

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
225
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
262
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

262 Views
Message 14 of 37

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

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".


We are kind of on the same page but like many liberals, I am a business person and a pragmatist.  Dumping federal flood insurance completely would destroy the value of every private structure already built in those areas.  With the number of properties involved, this is an economic hit we cannot afford so it makes sense that new building or any reconstruction fit codes which account for the possible future flooding. 


Agreed - it is not an immediate "A/B" decision. The ideal is to establish a goal and a plan to get there.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
262
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
271
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

271 Views
Message 15 of 37

Here's the rub: You can buy insurance on just about ANYTHING - Elvis got insurance on his sideburns, and Lloyd's of London had to pay up when he was drafted and the GI haircut did not include sideburns. I understand Lloyd's worked a deal to get the clippings, and who knows, they may have resold them for a profit, but regardless, The King paid for the insurance.

 

You want to live by the water, buy insurance that the insurance industry will price for you. Can't afford it? Don't build and spend the summer in a tent/trailer by the water instead.

 

You want to live in the forest? Sameo samo - you get fire insurance from a private company who will tell you what the risk is for where you want to live. Can't afford it? Live in a tent/trailer you can evacuate when people ignore Smokey's sage advice.

 

Republicans will oppose this because Oligarchs who develop property by the water and in the woods won't get as much money because the market for their product will be seriously diminished. Since Texas Government let the houses be built in the flood pain, Texans should foot the bill for repairs that SHOULD have been prevented.

 

As for Houston being in a flood plain, some of it is and those homes have been rebuilt on taxpayer's dime several times. My concern is giving money to Texan chemical plants, or to pay for the damage they cause because Texas has chosen  to NOT regulate their operation, their location or their disaster preparedness.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
271
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
303
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

303 Views
Message 16 of 37

@GailL1 wrote:

 

Somehow, I am getting the impression that you think flood insurance is like homeowners insurance - it is not.

 

Federal flood insurance coverage is capped at $250,000 per building and $100,000 for contents, though you can purchase policies with lower limits.

Depending upon what flood zone the house is in and your choice of deductible, the premiums are very high for this amount of coverage.

 

It does not cover everything especially in walk-out basements or detached garages.  

 

Consumer Reports just did a pretty good synopsis of the program.

Consumer Reports - What Flood Insurance Does and Does NOT Cover

 

Nobody gets a multimillion dollar house rebuilt with the National Flood Insurance Program.

 

I read in USA TODAY that the majority of homes destroyed by Hurricane Harvey were NOT in a designated flood plain.  A lot of the damage was also done by wind and rain.  

 

The he levees in NO would be no match for Hurricanes dropping 3' + of rain in a short period of time.  Katrina did not sit around spinning and dropping continuous rain over NO in 2005.

 

So New Mexico has some arsenic in the water - some of it is natural, I am sure, originating in rocks - We have radon gas where I live because of the underground granite - tributaries of Stone Mountain.

 

Nobody can force people to get flood insurance if they don't have a mortgage - nobody can force people to have even regular homeowners insurance or as in Florida - hurricane insurance if the real estate is owned by them exclusively.

 

In fact, some will be shocked that their regular homeowners policy isn't covering them.

 

 

 

 


 Well, tell me if it works like this. The Federal government guarantees the value of the home and the private insurance company acts as the intermediary handling the paperwork, etc.  If I build a home in a flood plain, buy flood insurance, and get flooded out, the taxpayer picks up the tab.  I think that is pretty close. 

 

I agree many are going to be surprised but we are not talking about that.  I am saying that the $25billion deficit the insurance program is running should stop. If you want flood insurance, you should have to build according to flood specs. Or, you should take on the risk yourself. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
303
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
298
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

298 Views
Message 17 of 37

 


@Richva wrote:

. . . . 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. 


 

 

Somehow, I am getting the impression that you think flood insurance is like homeowners insurance - it is not.

 

Federal flood insurance coverage is capped at $250,000 per building and $100,000 for contents, though you can purchase policies with lower limits.

Depending upon what flood zone the house is in and your choice of deductible, the premiums are very high for this amount of coverage.

 

It does not cover everything especially in walk-out basements or detached garages.  

 

Consumer Reports just did a pretty good synopsis of the program.

Consumer Reports - What Flood Insurance Does and Does NOT Cover

 

Nobody gets a multimillion dollar house rebuilt with the National Flood Insurance Program.

 

I read in USA TODAY that the majority of homes destroyed by Hurricane Harvey were NOT in a designated flood plain.  A lot of the damage was also done by wind and rain.  

 

The he levees in NO would be no match for Hurricanes dropping 3' + of rain in a short period of time.  Katrina did not sit around spinning and dropping continuous rain over NO in 2005.

 

So New Mexico has some arsenic in the water - some of it is natural, I am sure, originating in rocks - We have radon gas where I live because of the underground granite - tributaries of Stone Mountain.

 

Nobody can force people to get flood insurance if they don't have a mortgage - nobody can force people to have even regular homeowners insurance or as in Florida - hurricane insurance if the real estate is owned by them exclusively.

 

In fact, some will be shocked that their regular homeowners policy isn't covering them.

 

 

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
298
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
314
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

314 Views
Message 18 of 37

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. 

 

I agree, we have Indian reservations in the US that don't have running water, I agree we need to rethink priorities.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
314
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
312
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

312 Views
Message 19 of 37

@Richva wrote:

@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.  


You left out Auto Insurance. In all states every car must be insured to get a license plate, and you are fined if you do not have it. The state approves all rates in states.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
312
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
312
Views

Re: Time to change federal flood insurance

312 Views
Message 20 of 37

@rk9152 wrote:

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".


We are kind of on the same page but like many liberals, I am a business person and a pragmatist.  Dumping federal flood insurance completely would destroy the value of every private structure already built in those areas.  With the number of properties involved, this is an economic hit we cannot afford so it makes sense that new building or any reconstruction fit codes which account for the possible future flooding. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
312
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

This AARP gamer plays to get back her art and identity after a health scare. Read Regan C.’s story, available now.


gamer Regan C.

Top Authors