Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Not News: Bootstrappy libertarian John Stossel blasts the government for providing flood insurance. News: He is collecting a flood insurance check. Facepalm: For the third time   (thinkprogress.org ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, John Stossel, flood insurance, news, money back guarantee, National Flood Insurance Program, floods, Steve Doocy, federal government  
•       •       •

2365 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-11-01 02:18:30 PM  
4 votes:
Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

The insurance industry is happy to sell insurance when they can make a lot of money and earn a healthy underwriting surplus on it--health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, etc. But when it comes to disaster insurance that they might have to pay big bucks out on some day--for example, wind coverage in Florida, earthquake coverage in California, and flood coverage nationwide--they throw up their hands and say it's "uninsurable." Which means that either people can't insure their homes at all, or there has to be some sort of non-profit government-backed insurance pool to provide that coverage.

The only other option is nobody has flood insurance at all. Meaning that people's life savings are wiped out, people walk away from their mortgages and the banks are left holding the bag with a worthless pile of rubble in their place, the local economy crashes, and undoubtedly, the feds have to organize and pay (with tax dollars, rather than with insurance premiums) for all disaster recovery. Is that what these wankers would prefer?
2012-11-01 04:08:42 PM  
3 votes:

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


For the most part, you can't buy private flood insurance anywhere in the U.S.--whether it's New Orleans, Phoenix, or the top of a mountain in Colorado. The private insurance market simply isn't interested in the risk. Your private insurer will take your premium for it, but what it's really providing you with is a flood policy issued by the NFIP--you insurance company forwards all of the premium collected to the feds, and the feds are the one who are on the risk. The insurance company bears no risk of loss under NFIP policies.


Anway, catastrophe insurance works differently than regular insurance, such as fire insurance. For an insurance company that issues fire insurance, they're going to have some losses every year, but the goal is, on an average annualized basis, to take in more in premium than they pay out in losses. Their losses may vary a little from year to year, but on average they're pretty predictable (or at least they hope so--if they predict wrong, they lose money and/or eventually go out of business). With catastrophe insurance, though, it's possible that the insurer may go years and years without paying out any claims to speak of. Then--boom--one day, they have losses that are enormous--more than they have in assets, and more than the total amount they took in as premium income over the years. Were they supposed to bank every single dollar of premium they ever collected to keep it in reserve for that one year--the year that may come next year, 100 years from now, or 1000 years from now? Not a real efficient use of capital, is it?

Let's say, for example, that an insurance company wrote two policies on the same book of 1000 similar properties--a flood policy and a fire policy on each one. Let's also assume that the actuarial and loss-modeling figures say that, for each property, there's a 1-in-100 year (1.%) chance that there will be a fire that'll burn the place down in any given year, and there's also a 1-in-100 year (1%) chance that there will be a serious flood. Let's also assume the value of each property is $100K. That would mean that the raw, risk-based premium for each property (without any profit load added in), should be $1000 per year on both the fire and flood policies ($100,000 times 1%). Let's add, let's say, 10% (to use round numbers) for a profit load, and we arrive at an annual premium of $1100 for each policy. Times 1000 properties, that means the insurance company collects $1,100,000 in premium for the fire coverage, and the same amount for the flood coverage.

How does that work on the fire coverage? Well, because fires occur all the time and aren't necessarily keyed to infrequent events (like earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, etc.), in an average year, 1% of the homes in that 1-in-100-year risk band will burn down. So that means that, on average, the insurer would pay 10 losses of $100K each in any given year on the fire coverage, for a total of $1,000,000. The insurer collected $1,100,000 in premium, so it's earned a profit of $100,000. If it's a private company, it can pay out that profit as dividends to its shareholders.

How does it work on the flood coverage? Well, in the average year, there will be no losses. Why? Because it's catastrophe coverage, and catastrophes don't happen often. In this case, we can expect that the insured event will happen, on average, only once every 100 years. So, statistically speaking, in 99 of the next 100 years, we can expect that the insurer's losses will be zero, but in one of those 100 years, we can expect the insurer's losses to be $100,000,000 (1000 homes at $100K each). That works out to an average annual loss over 100 years of $1,000,000 ($100 million divided by 100 years), the same as the fire coverage, but the problem is that it comes all at once, not gradually over that 100 years.

So, for example, in Year 1, there are no floods, and the insurer collected $1,100,000 and paid out nothing, for an annual underwriting profit of $1,100,000. Let's say this goes on for 10 years, and at the end of 10 years, the insurer has collected $11 million. At the end of 50 years, it's collected $55 million. It can't distribute it to its shareholders as premium, though, if it's acting responsibly. It needs to just sit on that pot of money, saving it for the one year that it has huge losses. Not a particularly efficient use of capital, is it?

And what if that big flood comes after, say, only 5 years after the insurer got into the flood insurance business? Suddenly it has to pay out $100 million in losses, for which it's collected an aggregate of only $5.5 million in premiums. Where is it supposed to get the other $94.5 million to pay those losses? This is how many insurance companies have gone tits up in the past--leaving their policyholders with no way to collect the benefits they paid premiums for.

And anyway, if the solution is just "don't build where there might be a flood," take a look at the 100-year floodplain maps sometime. A lot of the country falls into that. If nobody built a house in the 100-year floodplain, we would have to cram 300 million people into Idaho and Montana and Nevada and similar places, and leave many of our existing populated areas to rot.
2012-11-01 02:41:02 PM  
2 votes:
If "fark you, I got mine" is literally just the libertarian position on everything, then it's not really hypocrisy is it? I think you owe someone an apology, Subby
2012-11-02 01:12:38 AM  
1 vote:

Bucky Katt: Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me back my $50.


Correction - you left out two words, I put them back in for you.
2012-11-02 12:07:15 AM  
1 vote:
CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?
2012-11-01 09:51:28 PM  
1 vote:

Bloody William: schrodinger: Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.

John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?

Does he have a mortgage? Because private enterprise might be forcing him to get an insurance policy he doesn't want, if the house is at risk of flooding. The bank might require NFIP protection.


The bank requires flood insurance. NFIP just allows him to get it at below market rates, subsidized by everyone else who didn't buy a house in a flood plain.

Get rid of NFIP and make people pay fair market rates for insurance. An insurer WILL provide a policy at some rate. No reason that taxpayers should give some a subsidy just because they bought a house in a risky area.
2012-11-01 07:30:54 PM  
1 vote:

Emposter: Libertarians are like unicorns, except people take them less seriously.

Modern libertarians are just like the idiot tea-partiers who continue their nonsense claims that they're a real, separate party. Oh, sure, we vote for republicans, we run in Republican primaries, we caucus with Republicans, but we're totally independent. We're not Republicans at all.

Just more Republicans ashamed to be called Republicans.

/please, someone say Gary Johnson


Gary Johnson. He is certainly a much better human being than Mitt Romney, he was successful in business without the advantages of vast inherited wealth, and the complete absence of scruples that characterize all of Romney's ventures,, he was a very competent governor who left office with high approval rates, again, completely unlike Romney. And yet the GOP picked Romney. Whatever you want to say about libertarians, they didn't sink to that level of flailing disgusting failure.
2012-11-01 07:13:02 PM  
1 vote:
FTA

Unlike private companies, the government can also require homeowners in flood hazard areas to purchase insurance

So it's quite possible that he's required to participate in the insurance directly.

Secondly, if the Federal government chooses to subsidize the risks of coastal homes, that's not his doing and he's under no obligation to avoid it - he like everyone else is on the hook for taxes to pay for the subsidy even if he didn't own such property. Liberals who favor higher government spending don't send the Feds more money than they owe, and they still take every deduction they qualify for.

The hypocrisy claim is BS, but that doesn't stop the kneejerk leftie FarKoser wharglebargle.
2012-11-01 06:33:34 PM  
1 vote:

schrodinger: So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?

Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?


Nope, he's saying that thanks to the poor saps forced to pay taxes to fund the government insurance program, he gets to have this nice house on the beach at a much lower cost. Thanks, all you saps out there! And by the way, this program should be abolished.
2012-11-01 06:21:53 PM  
1 vote:
Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).

Sorry libtard, try again with your fake outrage and stupid article written by someone who has never read a book or knows what their talking about
2012-11-01 05:38:07 PM  
1 vote:

Cyberluddite: I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make, but you seem to be missing a very basic premise of the concept of insurance. And that's this: The basic concept of buying insurance protection to protect your assets is to put you in the same position you were in before the loss, which means that, for purposes of property insurance, "Value" or "worth" = cost of reconstruction. That's how almost every residential property insurance policy is written, and flood insurance is the same. In a down real estate market (and in run-down areas), this may mean that the reconstruction cost is more than what you could sell the property for on the open market, but you're paying premium based on the reconstruction cost, not the mark ...


You could buy insurance at its true cost. You could insure your house for $250,000, or for replacement even, if you were fine with $70,000 annual premiums. But people can't afford those premiums. Logically if you can't afford to insure something, then it's either not worth what you're insuring it for, or you're not rich enough to own it. People want to be able to pay $600 a year for $250,000 of coverage. Of course no insurance company would do that. The reason these homes are "uninsureable" is because those people shouldn't be living there.
2012-11-01 05:34:29 PM  
1 vote:

Bloody William: Then it has fark-all to do with flood insurance (which, incidentally, does adjust and cartegorize premiums based on historical tendency towards flooding) and the discussion at hand. This is a week after the worst hurricane to hit the northeast and one that entire states and cities are still recovering from. This isn't about a handful of houses that were built right on a river. It is intellectually dishonest to connect the two in the context of this discussion.


People on the coast or on a river would lose everything. Past that critical few thousand feet and the damage would be much lessened, or even non existent. I lived five miles from the James River, and every hurricane we have never had issues with flooding, only with a tree or two being knocked over. If people had to pay the true cost of living in a flood plain, they would not live there. Then we wouldn't have the problem of having to rebuild their houses for them. Federally subsidized flood insurance is the only reason people can afford to live next to a huge body of water that floods.
2012-11-01 05:34:21 PM  
1 vote:
Its good to see the Fark community finally standing up for a program that benefits the 1% ers.

I want my beach house rebuilt no matter how many times its destroyed. I want to live on the beach and thank you (taxpayers) for insuring me at a reasonable cost.

My insurance company said they would write flood insurance on my beach house for $75000 a year but gov't program was only $1500.
2012-11-01 05:33:48 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Hey., look you are attempting to redefine the conversation as fitting your own narrow interpretation because multiple posters are pointing out how foolish your statements are. Truly a shocking development.

a conversation that I started with my Honda Mules? See, what's happening is what "multiple posters" are doing is trying to argue against and argument that hasn't been made because that's how liars roll.

I have to agree your initial "Honda mules" post was inherently dishonest as has been your attempts to reddefine thediscussion.

skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

You chose to dishonestly characterize the post you were responding to, and by continuing to insist that your chosen mis-characterization of the initial post is the only legitimate basis of discussion. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt as just being foolish and stubborn, but now I must admit that your entire involvement in this thread as been based on dishonesty. Thank you for leading me to that realization.

why didn't you bold the first part? Oh, that's right. Because you're a liar. Or is "populations" a new word for "ports" that I am unfamiliar with?


That part makes you no less dishonest. Your dishonesty was in trying to limit the discussion to only those who actually work at the docks. The actual post refers to the relationship between shipping ports and wealth and commerce, and the populations that are required to fill all those roles, not just the dockworkers that you are pretending are the entire basis of discussion. It is no coincidence that the financial district was so near the flooding.

Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.
2012-11-01 05:33:03 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: and we're talking about the necessity for people to live on the water to operate shipyards. Not what insurers categorize hurricane damage as.



The whole argument started because a poster said people don't need to live in areas where private insurers won't cover their hurricane damage.

I said that was pants on the head retarded, because that would eliminate areas that cover our ports and shipyards.

You claimed that ship builders and longshoremen don't need to live in "floodplane" to build ships.

I'm pointing out that anyone who lives in any area that could be remotely touched by a hurricane technically lives in a "flood plane", because insurers categorize all hurricane damage as "flood damage" whether it has to do with floods or not. This includes people living hundreds of miles inland and away from rivers, much less "2 miles".

So, yeah, the conversation kinda has to do with insurers.
2012-11-01 05:29:14 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: Or is "populations" a new word for "ports" that I am unfamiliar with?


Actually, it's a very, very old synonym for it, if you want to look into the history of almost any major city, or minor city, or large town in the country. Built on the coast, on rivers, or at the mouth of a river on the coast. There is a reason for that. There's also a reason that dating back to ancient Egypt populations have clustered near sources of water. That is something you cannot reasonably demand to change, if only because of the sheer logistical insanity of saying, "Well, commuting's easier. No reason for tons and tons of people to leave in this places where tons and tons of people have been living for centuries and where there's already far more extensive infrastructure."
2012-11-01 05:15:53 PM  
1 vote:
If something is "uninsureable" it's not because a bunch of people get hit simultaneously, it's because people overvalue their property. A $400,000 dollar house on the beach that gets knocked down every five years is not worth $400,000. So what happens is Joe Homeowner who wants to insure his property goes to an insurance broker, and they tell him he can buy $400,000 dollars of insurance for $80,000 dollars a year. He says that's ridiculous, he's not going to pay it. So he doesn't. Five years later his house gets knocked down. Then he has no insurance, and the federal government swoops in to save the day! He gets a new house! Financed by the 99% of the country who doesn't lose its house in hurricane season, because we're either too poor or too smart to not build a super expensive building in an area that's destroyed every five years. So now he pays $800 dollars a year, and our taxes make up the other $79,200. Again, this problem comes from the fact that the house is not worth $400,000 to begin with. Would you pay $20,000 for a car that blows up after five years? Would you pay $60 for a video game that uninstalls itself after 24 hours? So why the hell should we pay so that Joe Homeowner can get a house priced at 10 times its value?
2012-11-01 05:01:13 PM  
1 vote:

schrodinger: Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.

John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?


This is the whole point. If it's uninsurable through private means, then many fewer people would recklessly build fragile houses on the beach. The feds should just say, "This insurance program does not apply to beachfront property."

But since poor people are being forced to subsidize flood insurance for the rich, John Stossel is able to rebuild time and time again. Thanks, poor people.
2012-11-01 04:50:03 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either.


Doofus, Sandy was a small Category 1 Hurricane. To say only people living on a "flood plane" or within "two miles" (in your example) wouldn't be effected by a Category 3-4-5 Hurricane is not only laughable, but utterly untrue.

The FEMA declarations of Katrina (Cat 5) for example...


upload.wikimedia.org
upload.wikimedia.org 

How far do you think a commercial portsman should live away from a Gulf of Mexico port for his commute? Illinois?
2012-11-01 04:38:07 PM  
1 vote:

schrodinger: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

It's a good thing that natural disasters only effect people within 2 miles of the coastline.

Also, it's not like these natural disasters seem to be happening right now at a far more frequent rate compared to a few decades ago.


it's a good thing you didn't read the thread as feigning ignorance of the topic allowed you to make this insightful comment
2012-11-01 04:32:31 PM  
1 vote:

InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: oh, so we're no longer talking about the necessity of people living on the ocean? Just lemme know so I can follow your ever morphing point

You inferred that it's not necessary to have high density populations living near the ocean to operate commercial ports, because people could simply live far enough away to avoid all Hurricane/flood damage and commute to commercial ports. This was an utterly ridiculous and laughable point. Thus, I'm now laughing and ridiculing you.


ah so now you're using the weaselly "near" and expanding the damage to include "hurricane" damage and not the flooding from bodies of water as is the topic? I live 3 blocks from the Hudson River and didn't see a drop of flooding. My mom lives 5 miles from the LI Sound and about 10 from the Atlantic - didn't see a drop of ocean flooding either. Is there something precluding either of us from working in some seafaring industry? No, of course not. Your insistence that people MUST live in a flood plain is what is laughable and ridiculous.
2012-11-01 04:26:50 PM  
1 vote:

Satanic_Hamster: TheOnion: Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.

I know you're a troll account, but I also know there's a lot of people who feel this way.

Under that logic, why aren't right wingers also going out and getting abortions every weekend just for fun? I mean it's LEGAL so you may as well do it.

And if there was a legal loophole that you could rape nuns for two days a year, why, it's just common sense to go out and rape nuns there. It's the governments fault, not yours.


First, I don't know why you think I'm a troll account. I've been here a long time, and I don't think it's appropriate to immediately devolve into unproductive name calling.

The thing you're missing here is that this is a financial issue, not a moral issue (like rape, the example you provided). People don't commit crimes because they are morally opposed to them. This would be more like not taking a tax credit because you don't agree with the taxation system. Just because you don't completely agree with the way the government is spending money, doesn't mean you can't benefit from the current system while still opposing it. Again, tax credits are a proper example, moral crimes (like rape) are not.
2012-11-01 04:17:08 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: Bloody William: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: skullkrusher: InmanRoshi: fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.

Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans? It's not like shipping ports have historically served any purpose to commerce and wealth or anything.

seriously. Living 2 miles away from your dockworker job would take forever to commute on your Honda Mule

Sorry, I was unware that it's only residential property that carries insurance.

we're talking about houses

We're talking about NFIP as a government program, and NFIP covers businesses too.

We're talking about Stossel's house. The post he was responding to was talking about houses. IR responded with "Yeah, why do we need populations built near oceans?"

We don't need populations near the oceans. We don't need houses near the oceans.

*near the oceans = in some reasonably expected danger of flooding from the ocean


So only water front property is damaged by Hurricanes?

upload.wikimedia.org
2012-11-01 04:04:32 PM  
1 vote:

Philip Francis Queeg: Stossel isn't forced to pay a thing. If he does not want to buy flood insurance he should not purchase property in a flood zone.


That's one of the most tendentious arguments I've seen from you, and you're not afraid to be tendentious.
2012-11-01 03:59:27 PM  
1 vote:

fiver5: Stossel has been on record about this for decades... I remember in the 1990's watching him on 20/20 standing in front of his beach house and thanking America for paying to rebuild it....

Calling him a hypocrite is missing the much larger point. But I guess that's about what I've come to expect.


Exactly. I cannot stand our tax code, but yet I claim my interest deduction every year. It doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite.

Actually, this is the opposite - he is quite open about this and has been all along.
2012-11-01 03:52:23 PM  
1 vote:
If they stop the program like he wants them to, he will stop collecting the checks.

See? Now, wasn't that easy?
2012-11-01 03:46:54 PM  
1 vote:

Fark Dupp: David Shultz should have slapped him harder.


Came to say this. Kinda. Was thinking he didn't hit him hard enough because he's still speaking.
2012-11-01 03:37:42 PM  
1 vote:
Libertarians are like unicorns, except people take them less seriously.

Modern libertarians are just like the idiot tea-partiers who continue their nonsense claims that they're a real, separate party. Oh, sure, we vote for republicans, we run in Republican primaries, we caucus with Republicans, but we're totally independent. We're not Republicans at all.

Just more Republicans ashamed to be called Republicans.

/please, someone say Gary Johnson
2012-11-01 03:31:28 PM  
1 vote:
If the government sets up a situation where someone can profit, it will be exploited.
2012-11-01 03:30:54 PM  
1 vote:

Cyberluddite: Gee, you know why the government provides flood insurance? Because the private insurance market refuses to accept that risk, you ignorant twatwaffle.

The insurance industry is happy to sell insurance when they can make a lot of money and earn a healthy underwriting surplus on it--health insurance, life insurance, auto insurance, etc. But when it comes to disaster insurance that they might have to pay big bucks out on some day--for example, wind coverage in Florida, earthquake coverage in California, and flood coverage nationwide--they throw up their hands and say it's "uninsurable." Which means that either people can't insure their homes at all, or there has to be some sort of non-profit government-backed insurance pool to provide that coverage.

The only other option is nobody has flood insurance at all. Meaning that people's life savings are wiped out, people walk away from their mortgages and the banks are left holding the bag with a worthless pile of rubble in their place, the local economy crashes, and undoubtedly, the feds have to organize and pay (with tax dollars, rather than with insurance premiums) for all disaster recovery. Is that what these wankers would prefer?


Stossel is absolutely 100% correct here. The reason you can't buy flood insurance at affordable rates is because it's too risky.

If its too risky, you shouldn't build and rebuild houses in flood plains.

flood insurance is a horrible program for the nation as a whole, but I don't blame people for participating. If the government offered everyone life insurance at 25-year old non-smoker rates, I wouldn't blame 75 year old smokers for signing up for it even if they realize it's a disasterous policy nationally. They'd be stupid not to, as would owners of risky flood prone property who didn't sign up for below market subsidized flood insurance.
2012-11-01 03:27:25 PM  
1 vote:

Vegan Meat Popsicle: That said, incredible asshole that he is notwithstanding, he bought into the program that was available to him, why the fark shouldn't he benefit under the rules he agreed to?


So, instead of being principled and not owning a beach house because he couldn't afford to rebuild it. he should just IGNORE his principles, because there is a way out.

Libertarian logic, indeed. fark my principles! I can take advantage of a system I abhor!
2012-11-01 03:23:50 PM  
1 vote:

fiver5: If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Somehow it's supposed to be better I guess if people build and then have society at large subsidize these costs.


Better for mortgage lenders. Bad for society, bad for homeowners.
2012-11-01 03:17:55 PM  
1 vote:
I don't blame him for collecting a check anymore than I blame Warren Buffet for not volunatrily paying more taxes. If you're trying to change an entire system, the actions a single person aren't going to make a difference.
2012-11-01 03:12:33 PM  
1 vote:
If a location is truly "uninsurable" that would be a big clue to not build a house there... in a free market system, people would either not build, build and assume the risk themselves, or build and pay very high premiums to a private insurer.


Somehow it's supposed to be better I guess if people build and then have society at large subsidize these costs.
2012-11-01 02:53:37 PM  
1 vote:
Eh, I'm ok with this. I liken it to obeying an unjust law. If you don't agree with some aspect of the government, it's ok to go with it while trying to promote change imo.
2012-11-01 02:49:04 PM  
1 vote:
Stossel has been on record about this for decades... I remember in the 1990's watching him on 20/20 standing in front of his beach house and thanking America for paying to rebuild it....

Calling him a hypocrite is missing the much larger point. But I guess that's about what I've come to expect.
2012-11-01 02:08:13 PM  
1 vote:
John you ignorant slut!
 
Displayed 37 of 37 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report