Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

What did we learn?

January 19, 2014

In dealing with the criminal, obscene, incompetent mess now known as the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act, and researching it on our own, since no one else had the answers including FEMA, m......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(14)

eriklatranyi

Jan-19-14 6:54 AM

The legislation is good in that it aligns risks with premiums and reduces the subsidy paid by those with little, or no, risk.

The problem was how this legislation was implemented by the Obama Administration FEMA. FEMA did not conduct the affordability study as mandated by the law.

But, this is just another example of the Obama Administration making changes to the law without Congressional authority.

But, just like its previous criminal actions, the Obama Administration will not be held accountable.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-19-14 7:28 AM

the local insurance company that writes the policy has always taken 30%! Fema takes another 24% in admin costs so 54% goes to administration. When we paid 1,000$ a year they made 300$ now we pay 10,000$ a year they will make 3,000$. Your politicians who r in the insurance companies pockets would be silly to change this big win for corporate america. Call Pat Toomey!!

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-19-14 7:30 AM

Eeriklatranyi You must be smoking the same stuff the guys at Fema are??

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-19-14 7:39 AM

Pat Toomey says "BW12 gradually phased out subsidized flood insurance policies." My insurance went from appx 3,000$ a year to appx 11,000$ that"s gradual?? You Pat Toomey and Fema are not in your right mind. If you think that is gradual??

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Jan-19-14 7:52 AM

Maybe we need the "Affordable Flood Insurance Act", and force everyone who owns a home, or rents a home or apartment, to purchase flood insurance. That way it would spread out the risk evenly.

Those who live on mountain tops could purchase the Bronze plan, with lower premiums and a big deductible, while those living on the river bank 2 feet from the water could purchase a Platinum plan.

Rates could be based on income, so if you need help paying the premiums, government subsidies will be there to help out.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-19-14 8:57 AM

Your flood insurance company receives 30% of your premium to “administer” your flood policy. If there is a claim they receive over 60% of your premium. If you purchased “forced flood insurance”, up to 75% of the flood premium goes to the insurance company. Keep in mind if there is a claim, the money comes from the NFIP program. THERE IS NO RISK TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY. Currently 5.5 million flood policy holders. FEMA is EXPANDING the flood plain across the country to include 17 million homes in a flood plain. (3 people per household = 51 million people)

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-19-14 8:58 AM

Senators are now claiming Biggert waters was never legally passed.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MimLogue

Jan-19-14 9:03 AM

Cave /felem who wouldnt need help paying these premiums?? They are outrageous 5,000$ to 10 to 30.000$ breaK that down monthly on top of insurance taxes and a mortgage who can do this. MAYBE IF U HAVE A GAS WELL IN YOUR BACK YARD.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Jan-19-14 10:11 AM

Mim, my sarcasm didn't come through loudly enough.

This whole thing occurred because the government meddled in falsely reducing flood insurance premiums since the 1960's. There are people suffering from this who were born after this whole plan went into effect, and probably had no idea of what was actually going on.

It was a terrible idea to just come through and pull the rug out from under everyone like this - it should have been done gradually, not all at once, as you are right - the premiums are insane. Very few people can come up with an extra $1000 per month at the drop of a hat.

I think people live on a river bank should pay more for flood insurance than someone who lives further away from the water, but what this act has done will affect everyone.

Wait until people have to walk away from their homes and businesses, and your municipality sticks their hand out with tripled taxes to make up the difference. That's when the real griping will start.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Alsever

Jan-19-14 11:27 AM

Eric--you remind me of a guy in Tioga County who I was interviewing with FEMA reps for a Damage Survey--He claimed that we never flood when there is a Republican President.

I pointed out that he probably flooded because he worshipped the wrong god. In 18 FEMA flood disasters, I never had to interview a Hindu. Convinced that Gods who originate from the desert go out of their way to flood their followers.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Jan-19-14 11:41 AM

Sorry, MimLogue, Alsever...the law called on FEMA to conduct an affordability study first.

FEMA did not do this, but implemented rate changes arbitrarily.

FEMA is under the direction of the President of the United States.

Therefore, President Obama's own agency created your high rates because they did not follow the law.

I suspect your clouded minds come from the fact that you do not want to pay one penny more for flood insurance and were quite happy with the rest of society subsidizing your home.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Alsever

Jan-19-14 12:27 PM

My house in Pine Twp is in the Floodway portion of the Floodplain and has no flood Insurance. Has not flooded since '72--I must not be worshipping the wrong God.

As far as I'm concerned there is no reason for the US Gov't to subsidize any flood insurance. Wonder why the Liberals in the Tea Party have been so quiet on this issue?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-19-14 1:31 PM

Turn it back over to the private sector and allow them to do risk analysis on each individual property based on actual flood data and past damage incurred in order to make it fair for everyone. This was also a study that FEMA was suppose to complete and never did.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

susquehannaretriever

Jan-31-14 5:49 AM

Concerned about flood insurance? Interested in FACTS NOT conjecture,rumor,etc. Join us on stopfemanow dot com. Concerned homeowners fighting for whats right, against astronomical flood insurance premimums!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 14 of 14 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web