• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What's your opinion?

cutterone

Well-known member
Seven years ago tommorrow hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and since then the government has spent $17 Billion $ of taxpayers money to rebuild it. If it happens again do the taxpayers of this country owe it to the people and city to rebuild it again?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
cutterone said:
Seven years ago tommorrow hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and since then the government has spent $17 Billion $ of taxpayers money to rebuild it. If it happens again do the taxpayers of this country owe it to the people and city to rebuild it again?


First off, it won't be as bad as Katrina. Any damage should be covered with the insurance that people surely purchased after Katrina.


But at this point, liberals think that the taxpayer should be paying for everyone's insurance, so it's a toss up.
 

cutterone

Well-known member
well all I know is that 7 yrs ago I was not being forced along with 1000's of others across the country to take out and pay for flood insurance just because a waterway goes across our property to the tune of $1685/yr!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
cutterone said:
well all I know is that 7 yrs ago I was not being forced along with 1000's of others across the country to take out and pay for flood insurance just because a waterway goes across our property to the tune of $1685/yr!


You're probably paying for those that cannot afford insurance.


It will be the same with Health insurance.


There's a reason that obama sat behind "closed doors" with his insurance buddies.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I'm not sure anyone has flood insurance in New Orleans since the Nat'l Flood Insurance program is the only entity flood insurance can be purchased from.

Anyone know if they extended it again?

May 17, 2012 WASHINGTON -- The federal flood insurance program got another 30-day extension from the House on Thursday, while some lawmakers continue to work for the long-term extension they say is needed to ensure its stability. "I support the House version as a temporary extension to avoid a lapse, but getting to the five-year bill is the absolute top priority," Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said.

Vitter said he will try to get the extension, previously approved by the Senate Banking Committee, attached to a Federal Drug Administration user-fee bill pending on the Senate floor. It's unclear whether Vitter's legislative maneuver will be successful, or allow enough time to get the measure to President Barack Obama's desk by May 31, when the program's current authorization expires.

The House voted 402-18 to keep the program operating through the end of June. It includes a controversial provision to encourage private insurers to enter the market.

If the program lapses, as it did four times in 2010, no new policies can be issued and, as a result, house sale closings in communities where flood insurance is mandatory would be postponed.

Several members said it would send a terrible message to allow the program to lapse the day before hurricane season begins.

There was little support for Michigan Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller's suggestion to repeal the federal flood insurance program, which provided many Gulf state homeowners with money to rebuild after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

"So many of us very strongly opposed to ObamaCare, the government takeover of health care because we didn't believe the federal government should be running the health care for our entire nation," Miller said. "But apparently we have no problem with the federal government running a National Flood Insurance Program."

The program, started in 1968, has nearly 500,000 policyholders in Louisiana.

Unlike previous short-term extensions, the bill approved by the House includes what sponsors say are "reform measures," including studies on ways to get private insurance firms to provide coverage. That measure likely would face opposition in Louisiana and Mississippi where homeowners complained private property insurance carriers often attributed damage from Katrina and Rita to water damage, not wind, thereby avoiding paying out on policies.

But Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., the sponsor of the short-term extension, said it's important that Congress take steps to see if private companies can enter the market, thereby reducing the cost to taxpayers.

"This program is more than $17 billion in debt to the taxpayers," Biggert said. "We owe it to the homeowners, to the housing market and to taxpayers to begin the process of fixing this program, even if we must do it 30 days at a time."

Vitter said the privatization study could be added by amendment to the five-year flood insurance reauthorization bill.

Louisiana lawmakers said the top priority is not to allow the flood insurance program to lapse.

"This 30-day extension is short-sighted and kicks the can down the road," said Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-New Orleans. "But at the end of the day, it's our responsibility to make sure that the people of Louisiana are covered."

Rep. Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, noted that "Since September of 2008, funding for the NFIP has been extended 17 different times. I am much more focused on working to pass a long-term renewal of NFIP rather than these short-term patches that leave homeowners in limbo and don't strengthen the solvency of the program."
 

Mike

Well-known member
Yes they did extend flood insurance.
Legislation was signed on June 30, 2012 that will extend the National Flood Insurance Program for five years until September 30, 2017. Some of the highlights of this new legislation include:

■Reauthorizes the NFIP through September 2017 (sec. 100203);
■Establishes a formula for NFIP and wind insurers to pay where property damage cannot be attributed to wind or water, settling a long-standing dispute and avoiding further lawsuits (sec. 100253);
■Eliminates rate subsidies on severe repetitive loss properties that have made repeated claims on the program (sec. 100205);
■Improves the accuracy of floodplain maps by establishing a technical council of experts to review and set the standards (sec. 100216);
■Establishes an independent appeals board for homeowners and communities to resolve their flood map disputes with FEMA (sec. 100218);
■Reimburses homeowner’s appeal expenses when successfully challenging a flood map (sec. 100246);
■Requires the lender to terminate the flood insurance it “force places” and issue refunds to homeowners who already have their own coverage (sec. 100244);
■Studies expanding coverage to include living and business-interruption expenses (sec. 100233); and
■Studies the availability and affordability of property insurance for natural disasters (in addition to floods), which could justify a broader federal insurance program (sec. 100247).
 

Steve

Well-known member
I have had a flood insurance policy for over twenty five years..

I have even posted pictures on here of canoeing and kayaking on our street..

I have a neat picture of my boat floating in our garage..

Irene was a direct hit just 25 or 30 miles north of here..

but I have never had a flood claim.. or a wind claim.. or a water damage claim... our house has been here since 1927 and never been flooded... and I am smart enough not to park my car in the garage in a high full moon tide with a nor'easter bearing down on us.. that's were the jetski sits :lol:

alot of the claims I hear about are in new homes built over the last twenty years... or in areas that have repeated claims year after year...

none of the areas should have ever been built on and paying them to rebuild is insane.. the flooded areas of New Orleans should have never been allowed to rebuild..

if I have a claim I will not rebuild,.. cause if the water gets that high.. we are in in over our heads.. :shock:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Studies the availability and affordability of property insurance for natural disasters (in addition to floods), which could justify a broader federal insurance program

if the federal government takes on all disaster insurance companies will dump high risk and the cost to taxpayers will skyrocket.. thankfully it is only a study.. for now..
 

cutterone

Well-known member
The point is that the flood insurance program is no different than ObamaCare. Flood insurance should be between the homeowner and his insurance company &/or mortgage lender - not mandated by the government. I've lived here for 22 yrs, had numerous surveys and inspections by my mortgage lenders and insurance companies and never been asked or advised by either to take out the insurance let alone had a flood that placed my home or buildings in peril.
 

Mike

Well-known member
The way I understand it, Flood insurance is only mandated for those who have mortgage lenders that require it, or those who have a federally regulated mortgage lender (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac, etc.).
 

Steve

Well-known member
cutterone said:
The point is that the flood insurance program is no different than ObamaCare. Flood insurance should be between the homeowner and his insurance company &/or mortgage lender - not mandated by the government. I've lived here for 22 yrs, had numerous surveys and inspections by my mortgage lenders and insurance companies and never been asked or advised by either to take out the insurance let alone had a flood that placed my home or buildings in peril.

I agree to a certain point... many of the uninsured losses in storms are from flood damage.. which because of the federal program is not covered by private insurance..

if it was covered only under our private hazard insurance our overall cost for home owner insurance would increase proportionally.. so a guy living in a desert on a mountain would subsidize a guy living on the beach...

insurance companies spread the risk.. and often can't deny coverage due to state laws..

in the federal flood program the risk is tiered and the more risk the Zone more the premium..

because my neighbors have had multiple claims.. I pay more..

my zone is A07 meaning we could and would get shallow flooding, and we have no flood protection in place

unlike Katrina areas which have flood protection and would get deeper water if the fail as they did.. yet we pay about the same, even though they have more risk, and more costly federally funded protection..

http://home.gwi.net/~kellybellis/horizon/What%20is%20a%20flood%20hazard%20zone.htm

in other areas.. bcx the insurance is provided but not required by regulation.. if you are in zone A or Z there has been a flood and the area has been flooded.. you can now challenge that with the new regulation.

Reimburses homeowner’s appeal expenses when successfully challenging a flood map (sec. 100246);

Flood insurance is available in participating communities but is not required by regulation (zone X is used on new and revised maps in place of zones B and C).

http://home.gwi.net/~kellybellis/horizon/What%20is%20a%20flood%20hazard%20zone.htm

really while I have seen flooding at my door.. and you have seen none, we are both subsidizing those with multiple claims..

thankfully in the new regulation that will no longer be the case..
Eliminates rate subsidies on severe repetitive loss properties that have made repeated claims on the program (sec. 100205);

those claims are a serious burden on the program... and are usually wealthy people who have built right on the water.. heck some built over the water.. :shock:
 

Steve

Well-known member
Mike said:
The way I understand it, Flood insurance is only mandated for those who have mortgage lenders that require it, or those who have a federally regulated mortgage lender (Fannie Mae - Freddie Mac, etc.).

some lenders have "forced" it as a way of protecting their losses in areas around flood zones.. and incorrectly blamed it on federal regulations..

as the maps are updated. people are getting wise to the practice..

just look at the federal zone and the description.. a simple elevation survey (about $250 to $500 will correct the flood map and possibly get you in a higher zone with a lower payment. ..

I was 1 inch away and 1/2 inch above the next higher zone.. where as my neighbor is in the lower zone and 2 1/2 feet lower .. yet we were calculated the same.. mine is now correct saving me about $900 a year..
they won't carve my house or those to the east of me out because there are homes built lower to the east that would get flooded while mine is dry.. but our bills reflect a different zone number, (old system) in the new maps and zones there is less ability to get corrections.

the maps are an average basically.. saying this area could get flooded.

recently after the building boom we have seen water diverted and huge inconsistencies in the flood maps..

I would probably carry flood insurance even if I lived in a desert on a mountain.. because you just can't predict where the water ends up.. and it isn't covered without flood insurance.

but we as a nation need to stop subsidizing stupidity and irresponsibility..

and believe me.. the homes that I see repeatedly damaged are almost all second homes or owned by the wealthy..

personally I am tired of buying my neighbor new carpet and furniture every year...

they get flooded.. make a claim and bring their old furniture down from the city.. and do the same again... and it is legal.. basically every three years each of the family members gets free furniture..


so I can understand the outrage of those who are forced to buy the coverage..
 

cutterone

Well-known member
Every lender is federally regulated so therfore must comply with the FEMA rules on flood insurance. I had my property surveyed again this summer and clearly showed that my home and out buildings were above the requirement so now they have changed the rules saying that if any portion of my property is in the zone then it applies to all.
What I am questioning now since the prior post is about the new bill is the part where if I already have flood insurance will I have to participate in NFIP. The policy I have now is only $380/yr.
 
Top