Should hurricane-prone areas share insurance costs with those...

[harlinchi]

...not in areas where such storms occur most frequently? If the Mid-Atlantic region has fewer devastating storms than, say Florida, should our insurance costs be increased to compensate? Shouldn't a policy type be offered which excludes properties from frequent storm areas, so as to provide lower cost insurance to others?

If I have fewer or no auto accidents, my premiums will sink, as the risk has been shown to be lower. I think there should be a homeowners insurance policy offered which has lower costs as a function of having fewer at-risk properties.

[NNadir]

1. I am reluctant to finance the decision of people to locate homes in

areas where they shouldn't be built in the first place, like flood plains, coastlines, etc. Not only is the disaster failure rate higher, but the environmental impact of the decision to build there is rather large.

There are some exceptions of course. New Orleans is a place of great historical and cultural significance, but in general, I'm not willing to pay for McMansions on the beach.

[Captain Hilts]

2. It's WELFARE for the WEALTHY on the East Coast.

The answer is 'No', because on the East and West coasts, living close to the shore...has become the realm of the wealthy. That my mother's tax dollars subsidize 'flood insurance' for the wealthy beachowners at Sandbridge, Va is a farce. Thirty years ago you weren't permitted to build there.

My mother has already had to pay taxes to restore sand to that beach, even though it is barely accessible to the public. It's not fair that she also pay for their insurance.

You build on the beach, you should take the financial risk.

It's WELFARE for the WEALTHY.

[harlinchi]

6. How 'bout those West coast mudslides?

I'm pretty sure they don't happen in South Central or Watts! As a general rule, if your house is built on or next to a cliff, has to be buttressed with support poles, is in an area where mudslides occur and costs more than $750,000, then WHEN the event occurs, you're on your own, as far as I'm concerned!

[drb]

3. Ony if those in the hurricane-prone areas agree....

...to pay part of the summer electric bills for those of us who live in the desert.

[ComerPerro]

22. Good way to look at it

[HereSince1628]

4. It think they do actually. But damned near everywhere has

its own set of risks... I know my insurance carrier was concerned about how far my house is located from the local volunteer fire dept.

I think a scarier thought than having to pay for other people's risks is that the insurance companies in places like New Orleans will collapse in the face of their liabilities to customers and then folks who paid premiums won't get but pennies on the dollar for the coverage they paid for.

[Al-CIAda]

14. Yes, you are correct, insurance premiums are ALREADY calculated

by area and risk factor. Don't let this little fact spoil your unfounded bashing and willingness to say 'screw them' though.

Next tornado or earthquake, or whatever else destroys your house, you should not have built there, good luck.

[harlinchi]

20. This article made me think costs were spread nationwide.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9966483/


Hurricanes seen raising the cost of insurance
Firms warn of steep premium increases after record claims from storms

By Dean Starkman
The Washington Post
Updated: 7:57 a.m. ET Nov. 8, 2005

The big hurricanes have passed for now, but the battle over insurance rates and coverage is just beginning.

Insurance industry executives and regulators are warning of significant premium hikes for homeowners' insurance nationwide -- including double-digit-percentage increases in the Gulf states -- that could also spill over into other types of insurance.

The article said costs are spread nationwide. I, however, as you can tell, am no expert on insurance (or probably anything else!).

[Lisa0825]

5. I don't know.

There are things about the coast that require people to live and work here. I live in Texas City, right off of Galveston Bay. There are refineries and chemical companies galore here, not to mention the tourist industry in Galveston and the port too. So what do we do? close all the ports? Or expect blue collar workers to commute an hour each way to live somewhere that they could afford the higher insurance cost?

[dcfirefighter]

8. OR

how about taxing the billions of dollars worth of land along the coasts, and using that to build levees, disaster response, and rebuilding costs?

[harlinchi]

9. You're right, of course.

I might mention that choices were made to be there at all, but that's just being petty, on my part. I understand that everyone in at-risk areas is not independently wealthy. Perhaps a dollar limit might be imposed or some other need-based criteria.

It's not the working folks that are, e.g., building $1.75 million houses on stilts in unstable areas and then crying to me, with my $140,000 house, to help them rebuild.

But to your point, perhaps an exemption (based on regional costs) would help.

[dcfirefighter]

7. Absolutely NOT

Shared risk on choice issues leads to poor decision making - i.e. living in a dangerous area. The rationale for federal disaster insurance is that, without it, disaster payments would be greater. I call bullshit on that. I'm a hard-hearted SOB, I guess, but if a disaster destroys your city, and private insurance won't pay for it, well, that's what the social safety net is for.

In desireable adn valuable areas along the coast, or even in New Orleans, there is more than enough tax base to pay for dikes, dams, disaster response, etc., it does not need to be subsidized by the rest of the nation.

What is needed is teh WILL to tax that which can support the necessary revenues: it aint incomes, and it aint sales. It's the land values themselves. Exempt buildings from the local property tax, and crank up the rate until property values stop rising - or, for even more justice and revenue, crank up the rates until the sale values drop to a few thousand dollars.

Land is a gift of nature, or god, or whatever belief system you follow. It wasn't produced by anyone, and can not be owned like manufactured property. We each have a legitimate and equal claim to it. Taxing land has no broad economic harms - it actually increases wages, employment, and productivity. Unfortunately, there are millions of families who 'own' their tiny proportion of the total land value, and, failing to recognize that they are getting the short end of the stick, fight tooth and nail to keep us from taxing land. They fail to realize that something like 5% of the population owns 95% of the land value. It seems that they'd rather pay taxes on their wages, infringing on their right of self-ownership, so that they can claim ownership of a tiny (less than fair share) of the commonwealth.

[William769]

10. What about earthquake prone areas?

Tornado alley? Flood stricken areas? Brush fore areas? & so forth.

[harlinchi]

13. It seems to me that folks who chose to live in more stable areas...

...should realize some benefit. It's unfortunate that tornado- and hurricane-prone areas exist at all. Choosing to build on and live in such areas with fore-knowledge that bad weather stuff will happen and with the expectation that all will help you re-build is or should be foolish. Building there with the awareness that poor folk from Watts to Cabrini-Green to North Philly will kick in some bucks to help the 'poor' homeowners replace their $1.5 million home is as bad as giving tax breaks to corporations that earned over $5 billion on their latest quarter's profit statement, like Exxon-Mobil.

[beyurslf]

11. I live in the middle of tornado alley. Should carriers not give me

coverage for that since I know I live here?

[harlinchi]

16. I dreaded hearing from one who lives there!

I have no real answer. Perhaps insurance costs should be shared by those who live in high-risk areas. I just feel heartless saying that.

[beyurslf]

19. But who doesn't live in an area where there is some inherent risk?

The ones I don't feel sorry for are those who build in known flood plains.
The entire west side of my city was a flood plain for years and years. A flood system was built in the 1960's and expansion shortly started there. But the sprawl has moved far beyond as the west side is the fastest growing part of the county now. Each new development builds its system to keep the homeowners from being required to have flood insurance. The problem is it creates problems for the other already existing buildings, which still don't have flood insurance. Everyone knows it too. Two years ago when half the west side of town flooded, I felt no sympathy. You could see it coming for decades. It was just a matter of time.

[MercutioATC]

23. You chose to live in tornado alley but "don't feel sorry" for people who

chose to live on a flood plain????


:wtf:

[beyurslf]

24. I guess I should restate that since my post clearly explains what

I mean. People who live in a flood plain--and have their neighborhood designed so that they are not required to have flood insurance. When the west part of the city flooded, no one had flood insurance even though the entire area is a flood plain. Each neighborhood built drainage systems to get their area a flood plain exemption and therefore no requirement of flood insurance. Only problem was all the neighborhoods did it and the overall system could handle it. So everyone flooded. And no, I don't feel sorry for them.

I live in tornado alley. And I have homeowner's insurance that covers it. They live in a flood plain and didn't have flood insurance. What's to feel sorry for?

[Dr.Phool]

12. I think you guys should pay for ALL of my insurance!!!

:evilgrin:

Now seriously. I don't think there is that much subsidizing going on. I moved to Florida (Gulf Coast, Tampa area) 3 years ago. My homeowners insurance is triple what I paid in Ohio, on a similar priced house. Being in a 100 year flood zone, I also pay an additional $700 per year in flood insurance.

People who live closer to the gulf, about 2 miles west of me, pay homeowners rates that are double and triple what I pay.

[harlinchi]

17. That's good to hear. I didn't know that.

Not that I'm glad to hear that you are paying 3X more in Fl than in OH or anything but...

I feel better!

[AndyTiedye]

15. Willing to Share Hurricane Costs if We Can Also Share Earthquake Costs

I note that there is such a thing as Federal flood insurance,
(most of the damage from this year's hurricanes was from flooding)
but there is no Federal earthquake insurance.

[GumboYaYa]

18. I think that generally insurance rates are based on the

risks of the particular location. I am not certain how accurate the initial premise is.

Nevertheless, the concept is not bad...let's extend it to other insurance. For example, I jog, eat a vegeterian diet, maintain cholesterol around 160, and generally stay in good physical condition. Why should I pay for the healthcare insurance for people who overeat, smoke, don't exercise and generally live an unhealthy lifestyle? Hell, why should unhealthy people get a higher percentage of the Medicare dollars I pay into the system than I get? Fair is fair isn't it?

Fortunately, that is not the case b/c at some point we are all in this together. While we should not pay for luxury homes on the beach. Ordinary working Americans who live some place b/c of economic necessity, should not be lumped in with the luxury home owners.

[harlinchi]

21. I agree and I smoke!

There's no way y'all should have to cover costs associated with my (so far) inability to quit. I understand it's coming to that with respect to health insurance. Lifestyle should be a factor in determining costs.