Video report
- For their own good
Fifty years ago, they were screwed-up kids sent to the Florida School for Boys to be straightened out. But now they are screwed-up men, scarred by the whippings they endured. Read the story and see a video and portrait gallery.
- More video reports
|
News
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Risks of disaster must be shared
By A TIMES EDITORIAL
Published October 8, 2007
Congress is finally listening to Florida's pleas for help in providing affordable hurricane insurance to property owners. One bill that would expand the federal flood insurance program to add wind coverage passed the full House. Another bill that would expand the financial pool for catastrophe insurance funds (such as Florida's) to other states survived a key House committee vote. Either bill would leave Floridians feeling a little less lonely as they face up to the risks of a natural disaster. While neither piece of legislation is a sure thing - President Bush has threatened a veto of the flood insurance bill, and the powerful insurance lobby has criticized both bills - at least there is progress. For years, lawmakers from other states haven't wanted to share Florida's risk. Then Hurricane Katrina and the multiple threats from weather change made other states realize we're all in the leaky boat together. Particularly hopeful is the bipartisan effort to pass these bills, with Republicans from coastal states refusing to be swayed by their party. The ambitious overhaul of the National Flood Insurance Program makes so much sense it's surprising Congress didn't think of it sooner. Under a bill that passed the House by a wide margin, federal wind insurance would be offered to homeowners along with flood coverage. It's no coincidence that provision was introduced by Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, where insurance companies refused to pay wind claims after Katrina, saying that flooding caused the damage. If this measure passes the Senate and survives a threatened presidential veto, homeowners with federal flood and wind insurance could avoid such denials of claims in the future. However, this program wouldn't necessarily make hurricane insurance more affordable because the bill calls for rates to be actuarially sound. The catastrophe fund bill - written by Florida Reps. Tim Mahoney and Ron Klein, both Democrats - offers more direct rate relief. The bill won support from two of Florida's Republican representatives on the Financial Services Committee in a 36-27 vote. The bill would allow states to voluntarily pool their resources to support catastrophe funds such as Florida's. Those states would also be eligible for low-interest federal loans in the event of liquidity problems or losses beyond the capability of their funds. Florida is going it alone with its own expanded catastrophe fund, but that effort has been disappointing - private insurers didn't lower their rates as expected, and the state took on enormous financial risk. Presumably, by spreading out the risk among several states to build up catastrophe funds, private insurers would be enticed to write more homeowner policies at more reasonable rates. We're not sure why the insurance industry, the Republican Party and the Bush administration continue to oppose such legislation. If the private insurance market could already respond adequately to the need, then state-operated Citizens Property Insurance Corp. wouldn't be the largest property insurer in Florida. Katrina proved that some threats are just too great for any one company, industry or state to handle. It is time Congress acknowledged that fact by passing these bills.
[Last modified October 7, 2007, 20:51:53]
Share your thoughts on this story
Comments on this article
|
by Joe
|
10/10/07 03:03 PM
|
|
Hey, a national fund! Great idea! Shoot, let's make it a global fund, and give it a sexy name, like say.... reinsurance. Wake up people, socializing insurance does not make roof shingles cheaper. This will never pass the Senate, thank God.
|
|
by Joy
|
10/08/07 06:19 PM
|
|
Bob, I'm a fourth generation cracker and I couldn't agree with you more. We chose to live here, why should Bob have to pay for our hurricanes? I don't want to pay for Californications earthquake insurance. this has a lot to do w/over development
|
|
by Ken
|
10/08/07 05:19 PM
|
|
You people saying that others should help share the risk don't seem to realize that a single hurricane affects many times more homes than a mudslide or a tornado. As for ice storms ... I've never seen a house destroyed by one in 30 yrs in North.
|
|
by Courtney
|
10/08/07 04:16 PM
|
|
No matter where you live there is some risk, so everyone sharing the risk sounds good to me. In the Midwest you have tornadoes, in CA you have earthquakes, in the North you can have damaging ice storms. We should all share it together.
|
|
by Gene
|
10/08/07 02:59 PM
|
|
I work in the insurance industry, although not in the property arena. I don't have a problem personally with the expansion of this program provided that the rates charged are actuarially sound and those with the exposure pay the freight.
|
|
by Barry
|
10/08/07 02:17 PM
|
|
"We're not sure why the insurance industry, the Republican Party and the Bush administration continue to oppose such legislation." Then you need to do your homework. They have made their cases repeatedly, and convincingly.
|
|
by John
|
10/08/07 01:51 PM
|
|
Mudslides in California, ice storms in the N.E., forest fires in the West, flooding and tornadoes in the Mid-west, hurricanes in the South (and moving northward - Carolina's have had a few). There is plenty of risk to go around - implement the fund.
|
|
by Elizabeth
|
10/08/07 11:58 AM
|
|
We all need to pay for adequate hazard insurance based on where we live and the conditions the area is prone to!
|
|
by Bob
|
10/08/07 11:44 AM
|
|
Why should other states subsidize the insurance costs for people that choose to live in Florida? You chose to live in a state with higher risks, but don't want to pay the higher costs for that insurance, so I should foot the bill. Go suck an orange.
|
|
by Kellie
|
10/08/07 11:39 AM
|
|
Florida's risk should remain that; Florida's risk. It's unfair from an underwriting/actuarial perspective to expect persons that live in low-risk areas to pay higher premiums to cover catastrophic risks in Florida. Can't afford the premium? Move...
|
|
by Jim
|
10/08/07 10:44 AM
|
|
In addition, we need to build and update our structures to be able to withstand storm damage, and create financial incentives toward that end. If we enjoy the climate of Florida, then we need to accept the financial liability of storm damage.
|
|
by Jim
|
10/08/07 10:40 AM
|
|
I have mixed emotions. Why should a retiree in the Carolina's subsidize a Floridians property insurance? It may be time for the state to run an efficient insurance system, and take the profitable accounts from private company's.
|
|
by Kevin
|
10/08/07 01:44 AM
|
|
No sense spreading the risk and sharing the burden when somebody, somewhere should be making an obscene profit on the misery of others (see GOP "principles").
|
|
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.
|