Hacker News Reader

Comment by InitialLastName | Hacker News Reader

As has been pointed out many times in recent weeks, they then want the "big government" to fund their rescue and recovery when that mistake bites them.

View on HN

Through the National Flood Insurance Program "one percent of homes have been responsible for more than 25 percent of the claims." In various ways the program is not allowed to deny issuing policies.

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/09/29/554603161/episo...

Though the podcast doesn't mention it, I'm sure politicians have blocked consideration of climate change in any overt way.

Edit: excerpts repackaged in text form (the podcast is much more in-depth) http://www.npr.org/2017/09/13/550607447/why-the-government-l...

I'm not sure what the relevance of insurance claims is. Flood insurance would be a scam if they only insured low-risk homes, and it would be horribly inefficient to only insure high-risk homes. When 99% of the insured cover the 1% that make claims, that looks like it's working as designed to me.

In the podcast IIRC one house has had $4M worth of claims across 4 floods over 8 years... the claims should be paid on existing policies, but new policies shouldn't be issued for that house unless major changes are made.

Coverage limits make that impossible.

The relevance is covered in more detail in the story but it basically comes down to not being able to charge market rates. The cap is well below what normal actuarial practice would call for but politics makes changing that hard.

Harris County is blue, just like other major metro areas in Texas. Don't look at Texas as a monolith. Thanks.

Exactly. I have no problem with idiots that want to build in flood plains, but I get upset with federally-subsidized flood insurance program and FEMA who come in to rescue people who make shit decisions.

Is this partisan? Do you feel the same way about people who live in areas prone to destruction by hurricanes, like New Orleans and Puerto Rico?

This is a great question. It's exactly the type (there are many more) of question that isn't asked and debated to conclusion, and this is a big part of why politics will never get fixed in the US.

Emotionally, I feel different about Puerto Rico because it’s island that got completely destroyed. It’s not like they can get in their car and go someplace safer.

But there is a lot of land in the middle of the country that is not prone to hurricanes and floods (?)

This is the cognitive dissonance of trying to explain away the underlying truth that you want to help people you sympathize with, but not the people you don't.

I don’t have a problem helping the people in Houston relocate and pay them what was fair market value for their homes.

But presumably you do have a problem helping them rebuild their homes where they live. And you don't have that same problem with the people of Puerto Rico, because... it's an island. Surrounded by big water.

Whether or not you can drive a car to a neighboring state is not a compelling factor on whether or not people should have to pick up and leave their home because other people no longer consider it feasible for them to live there.

Puerto Ricans have freedom of movement as well. Pay them fair market value for their houses + transportation and move them to Florida. PR is at much larger risk than the Houston metropolitan area to future disasters.

Seems fair, yeah?

Absolutely not partisan. I would prefer if my (federal) tax dollars didn't help anyone affected by hurricanes. I understand my point of view is way outside of the mainstream, where all of the politicians compete to see who can appear more concerned.

I'm curious to understand this perspective. If this were true what do you think the consequences would be?

Primarily, I think it would bring incentives closer to the people making decisions. I think it would have pretty dramatic effects on where people choose to live, how they construct their houses, and their level of disaster preparedness. And these are all very good things. Secondarily, it would ever so slightly reduce the federal budget. I don't have any illusion that it would be a meaningful impact on the budget, but I have very similar attitudes towards a wide swath of other federal programs.

Do you really want to mix up search-and-rescue versus rebuilding homes in flood plains?

Sorry, I see now that I worded my phrase in a way that was likely to be misunderstood. I meant "rescue" in a metaphorical sense that people are getting financially rescued by FEMA assistance.

It's hypocrisy, yes, but that's not stopping them.

It's up to the Fed, to attach strings to the recovery funding. For starters, fixing NFIP.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com