Flood Insurance Program Still in Limbo

Flood Insurance Program Still in Limbo

There are 13 comments on the Wall Street Journal story from May 18, 2012, titled Flood Insurance Program Still in Limbo. In it, Wall Street Journal reports that:

The long-running struggle to figure out the future of a federal program that provides insurance to homeowners in flood-prone areas is continuing, apparently without any end in sight.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Wall Street Journal.

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

United States

#1 May 18, 2012


Why are the taxpayers on the hook for those taking the huge risk of plopping down a house in the flood zone?


This must be moved to the private sector and if no one is willing to take the insurance risk, then the homeowner is one the hook. Whether it be the bank or an individual.
goose

Hoffman Estates, IL

#2 May 18, 2012
To rebuild in a flood prone area should be at your own risk!
You know where that would (and should) put New Orleans.
WVB

United States

#3 May 18, 2012
How could Obama let this happen?
Otis B Driftwood

West Sayville, NY

#4 May 18, 2012
WVB wrote:
How could Obama let this happen?
How did America let Obama happen?
goose

Hoffman Estates, IL

#6 May 19, 2012
WVB wrote:
How could Obama let this happen?
It's Bushes fault! Much bigger than B.O. thought when he took office.
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#7 May 19, 2012
The laughing liberal wrote:
Why are the taxpayers on the hook for those taking the huge risk of plopping down a house in the flood zone?
This must be moved to the private sector and if no one is willing to take the insurance risk, then the homeowner is one the hook. Whether it be the bank or an individual.
Anytime the government will pay for something when nobody else will, nobody else will.

It is true whether you talk about flood insurance or banks to big to fail or health care.

“Repeated lies are not truth”

Since: Jul 11

8120'

#8 May 19, 2012
Getting flood insurance is absurdly easy. Pay the premiums & don't live within 5 miles of a river, lake, pond, estuary, canal or drainage ditch.
Cleo

Marquette, MI

#9 May 19, 2012
The laughing liberal wrote:
Why are the taxpayers on the hook for those taking the huge risk of plopping down a house in the flood zone?
This must be moved to the private sector and if no one is willing to take the insurance risk, then the homeowner is one the hook. Whether it be the bank or an individual.
And you can add "disaster" aide to this as well. If you live in a hurricane, tornado or a flood plane, you and your bank should take the risk..the rest of the country should not have to pay for you based on where you live.

The North does not recieve extra monies for snow loads, or icy conditions, we have to BUDGET it from monies given to us...it would be nice if the south would do the same.
Waterviews

Carlsbad, CA

#10 May 19, 2012
The laughing liberal wrote:
Why are the taxpayers on the hook for those taking the huge risk of plopping down a house in the flood zone?
This must be moved to the private sector and if no one is willing to take the insurance risk, then the homeowner is one the hook. Whether it be the bank or an individual.
We like living by the beach! Do you mind?
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#11 May 20, 2012
Waterviews wrote:
<quoted text> We like living by the beach! Do you mind?
We like for you to pay the cost for living by the beach instead funding your flood insurance with our tax dollars, do you mind?
Robert

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#12 May 20, 2012
Cleo wrote:
<quoted text>
And you can add "disaster" aide to this as well. If you live in a hurricane, tornado or a flood plane, you and your bank should take the risk..the rest of the country should not have to pay for you based on where you live.
The North does not recieve extra monies for snow loads, or icy conditions, we have to BUDGET it from monies given to us...it would be nice if the south would do the same.
Don't worry one day another big one will hit new york one day and they still have plenty of catagory 1's now and then.

But there is no reason a flood can't not be considered a disaster like a fire is. There should not be a special exception for floods on your insurance policy with the government forcing policies on those in a flood plane with a government mortgage.

First place there should not be such a thing as a government backed mortgage but that is for a different post. If the government was not in the flood insurance business if you wanted a mortgage for a house in a flood plain your mortgage company would require that your hazard insurance cover floods and you would have to pay the cost. What this would do is stop people from building in flood plains unless they could afford the cost of insuring themselves and the cost of flood insurance would then be relative to the risk you take on.

There would still be houses on the beech but the people paying to have them there would pay the risk instead of someone in Minnesota.
Cleo

Marquette, MI

#13 May 20, 2012
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't worry one day another big one will hit new york one day and they still have plenty of catagory 1's now and then.
But there is no reason a flood can't not be considered a disaster like a fire is. There should not be a special exception for floods on your insurance policy with the government forcing policies on those in a flood plane with a government mortgage.
First place there should not be such a thing as a government backed mortgage but that is for a different post. If the government was not in the flood insurance business if you wanted a mortgage for a house in a flood plain your mortgage company would require that your hazard insurance cover floods and you would have to pay the cost. What this would do is stop people from building in flood plains unless they could afford the cost of insuring themselves and the cost of flood insurance would then be relative to the risk you take on.
There would still be houses on the beech but the people paying to have them there would pay the risk instead of someone in Minnesota.
What gets me is the insurance companies that don't tell the folks who buy the flood insurance, that they also have to buy wind and rain insurance as well....

I agree. People in the north should not be paying for those living in other areas, just like the south doesn't pay for anything but themselves since they are the ones ALWAYS recieving money. Bunch of welfare moochers.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#14 May 21, 2012
Waterviews wrote:
<quoted text> We like living by the beach! Do you mind?
its your choice. But considering Beach houses here in California start at a million dollars and go up from there, why should the tax payers pay for the insurance of some millionaire who wants to build his house on a Malibu sand dune?
And why should the taxpayer pay for the flood insurance of a hundred Million dollar Hotel built on the Beach in Hurricane alley? people who build in such area should do so at their own risk.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Spencer Bachus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News More House Retirements Likely to Come (Sep '15) Sep '15 Le Jimbo 9
News U.S. Republican lawmakers say regulators treat ... (Sep '14) Sep '14 SirPrize 13
News Top Alabama lawmaker Spencer Bachus to retire (Sep '13) Oct '13 Le Jimbo 14
News Immigration bill generating little heat in town... (Aug '13) Sep '13 Brenda besson 51
News House Republicans' Three Big Lies About the Vol... (Dec '12) Dec '12 Ninthman 6
News Rep. Shelley Moore Capito will run for Senate (Nov '12) Dec '12 Billy Ringo 15
News Opinion: For Ron Paul, the clock runs out (Jul '12) Aug '12 Cristos 4
More from around the web