Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (135238)	8/30/2005 1:06:13 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793561

A factual point--flood insurance which is relatively cheap because it is underwritten by companies subsidized by the feds, only covers damage done by flood, as its name implies. The highest amount of primary coverage one can get is $250K, any excess coverage is not subsidized and is quite expensive. Homeowner's coverage insures against any other kind of damage, including wind damage, etc. It is very expensive. In a hurricane, both kinds of damage might be sustained, though the kinds and types of coverage involved depends on the cause. My point is that the feds are not by themselves subsidizing the re-building of homes in flood prone areas. Since mortgage co.'s also require homeowner's coverage, which is privately paid, the costs of rebuilding in flood prone areas seem to be improperly thought here to be spurred exclusively by the feds. As usual, the economic reality is a bit different than the political and ideological one.