The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly about Hurricane Sandy

[Jason Roehl]

Were I an insurance company, I would just charge sufficient premiums to cover the expected losses, with appropriate breaks for disaster-resistant construction features...

[Jim Matthews]

In places like Florida, I'm not sure that's possible...

Given that so much of the Flood insurance is underwritten at a Federal level, it's a transfer of risk across State lines.

http://www.insuringflorida.org/artic...ce-market.html
http://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/

http://www.city-data.com/states/Florida-Topography.html

[Brian Elfert]

Insurance companies only write flood insurance because the federal government stands behind it. Nobody could afford flood insurance if insurance companies took all the risk as they do with normal policies.

It is becoming more and more common for government to just buy out homes in high risk areas instead of paying off flood insurance every few years.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Lets face it, there are way too many people building in areas that they shouldn't be allowed to and have flood coverage.

It should be that properties that have been flooded X number of times in X number of years are only allowed to rebuild if said owner is gonna pay the entire cost of rebuilding. And after rebuilding, they aren't eligible for any flood related damage coverage.

I'd also make some serious changes to building codes in high risk tornado areas too, like NOT allowing mobile homes. But that's a different discussion.

[Kevin W Johnson]

Insurance companies only write flood insurance because the federal government stands behind it. Nobody could afford flood insurance if insurance companies took all the risk as they do with normal policies.

It is becoming more and more common for government to just buy out homes in high risk areas instead of paying off flood insurance every few years.

Yeah, and you also can't get flood insurance if your locality doesn't participate in the Nation Flood Insurance Program either.

[Scott Shepherd]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres? After all, we know that area is a risk. There's a risk to living just about anywhere. You just have to pay for the additional risk in your rates. Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed.

I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

[John Coloccia]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres?

Maybe the UN should just force all of Japan to evacuate because it gets earthquakes and tsunamis. Maybe San Francisco should just be bought out and turned into a park....no one is allowed in, of course, because of the earthquake danger. Scott, lately I've just taken to ignoring people that want to micromanage and control everything about other people's lives. I tune it out. It literally starts sounding like "blah blah blah" after a while. I'm no fan of wasteful spending, believe me, but when we're going to spend $150+ million a year on the National Endowment for the Arts, which has brought us such great works as the Pi....I can't even say it because this is a family friendly forum....but that thing in a jar, surely we afford to help people out every so often when they're slammed with a natural disaster, even if they're living in a riskier area.

[Jim Matthews]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed. I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

If the insurance is entirely between the purchaser and purveyor, it's private.
When the insurance is born by the rest of us (without beach privileges) it's a transfer of wealth to people who already have money.

Certainly, you may build your house where you like.
Asking the rest of us to rebuild it is another matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...245212398.html

[David Weaver]

If the insurance is entirely between the purchaser and purveyor, it's private.
When the insurance is born by the rest of us (without beach privileges) it's a transfer of wealth to people who already have money.

Certainly, you may build your house where you like.
Asking the rest of us to rebuild it is another matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...245212398.html

I agree. In as much as a risk isn't insurable or it is and an individual decides that insurance is too expensive, the risk shouldn't be taken. Subsidizing the behavior with someone else's money just encourages making the situation worse and even more disproportional.

[David Weaver]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres? After all, we know that area is a risk. There's a risk to living just about anywhere. You just have to pay for the additional risk in your rates. Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed.

I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

Last time I checked, those were insurable properties, and didn't require a subsidy or the forced risk transfer to the rest of the population (san fran, tornado exposed homes, etc).

[Scott Shepherd]

Last time I checked, those were insurable properties, and didn't require a subsidy or the forced risk transfer to the rest of the population (san fran, tornado exposed homes, etc).

Funny, last time I checked, my premiums went into a pot that got used to pay for those homes. So I helped subsidize those homes built in "fire prone" areas or "tornado prone" areas. Doesn't matter to me, I paid for it both ways. So yes, I AM paying for those people to live in those places at affordable rates. Stop making me pay for those higher risks places and I'm fine with that.

The rest of the population already ARE paying for those houses to be replaced, via your insurance premiums. Anyone had your insurance company come in lately and say "great news, we're lowing your premiums"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

[Mel Fulks]

Actually there is an old mutual company in our ,and your city that does do that. They are quite careful about what they will insure,but they do at times waive premiums and even send out rebate checks.

[Brian Elfert]

Funny, last time I checked, my premiums went into a pot that got used to pay for those homes. So I helped subsidize those homes built in "fire prone" areas or "tornado prone" areas. Doesn't matter to me, I paid for it both ways. So yes, I AM paying for those people to live in those places at affordable rates. Stop making me pay for those higher risks places and I'm fine with that.

The rest of the population already ARE paying for those houses to be replaced, via your insurance premiums. Anyone had your insurance company come in lately and say "great news, we're lowing your premiums"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Those with homes in high risk areas do pay more due to the higher risk of a claim. Ask someone in Florida how much homeowner's insurance costs there. Hurricane coverage is generally very expensive with deductibles into the thousands or tens of thousands.

We do all pay for flood insurance claims since the federal government backs flood insurance.

[Scott Shepherd]

Those with homes in high risk areas do pay more due to the higher risk of a claim. Ask someone in Florida how much homeowner's insurance costs there. Hurricane coverage is generally very expensive with deductibles into the thousands or tens of thousands.

We do all pay for flood insurance claims since the federal government backs flood insurance.

I know that do pay more in those areas. My point is that the pool of money insurance companies gather from all of us are used to pay ALL claims. So we ALL pay for ALL damage, storm, fire, flood, etc. They don't say "Well, some people in California had a fire, so we can only use money collected by people that pay in California". They use money from everyone to pay those claims.

[Kevin W Johnson]

So should we stop allowing people to build in the midwest where they have tornados too? Should we not allow people to live in the West, where the fires burn 1000's and 1000's of acres? After all, we know that area is a risk. There's a risk to living just about anywhere. You just have to pay for the additional risk in your rates. Let's get serious, 200 homes along a coastline compared to the 100's of millions of houses out there, I think the insurance companies can do just fine fixing up houses along the coast when needed.

I think you have to look at history and see that some of these areas where things are being built haven't had damage in 100 years. I think 100 years is a pretty darn good standard to set the building permits by.

Who said we shouldn't?

I simply stated we need changes in building codes for high risk tornado areas. Mobile homes being the one thing that shouldn't be allowed. Lets face it, mobile homes aren't homes are even close to being able to withstand tornado's, and the building codes need to be changed for stick built homes in those areas. That way when something is destroyed and rebuilt, the chances of be destroyed again are much less.

ALL of us that pay homeowners insurance are subject too HIGHER rates everytime these kinds of things happen. We shouldn't have to keep paying time after time to rebuild houses in the same spot. Build it right for the location, or don't build it. People in those areas do pay a little more for insurance, but we ALL pay higher rates because of those people as well.