Your opinion please - should we bail out underinsured homeowners with higher taxes, or higher national debt?

Photo above - Hurricane Milton damage in my hometown. Picture Courtesy of the Plant City Observer.

First Helene. Then Milton. Oh no . . . not Nadine !!!! When will it end?

After several years of below normal hurricane activity, Florida is back to normal. Well, maybe worse than normal. We’ve had two good ones this year, and another is coming. Oh wait, it isn’t? Nadine is just a tropical depression, and will miss Florida entirely? Whew, I can let my homeowners insurance lapse after all. Somebody tell the weather channel. They're still showing the "cone" repeatedly on TV.

Lots of people are about to go without insurance. Companies are cancelling policies. Homeowners aren't replacing them with policies from other companies. They can't afford it. They put their faith in God. After watching the latest devastation. See link below.

Before the climate change cheering section goes bonkers, let's admit that Florida used to have a LOT MOEW hurricanes, and they were a lot deadlier. The worst was “Okeechobee” in 1928. Then the Labor Day Hurricane in 1935. People still talk about Andrew (1992).

So insurance companies have always had PLENTY of reason to raise homeowners' rates down here. They just didn’t do it. They apparently put THEIR faith in a flawed risk model, instead of God. Welcome to reality. And now welcome to the 2024 election.

Watch the candidates now rush to Florida, to chastise “greedy” insurance companies for trying NOT to go bankrupt, and raising insurance rates. Watch those same politicians give you the look of a stunned chicken when you ask them about federal flood insurance – at taxpayer expense – that allows rich beachfront homeowners from the Florida Keys to Martha’s Vinyard to keep rebuilding in the same location, over and over, with hilariously low premiums that no legitimate insurance company would ever consider. I’m not saying this is a vote buying scam . . . but it's a vote buying scam.

How should we “assist” people who can’t afford homeowners insurance, after actually buying their dream home? Tax hikes? More federal deficits? I’m betting politicians will go for “more deficits”. Nobody wants to announce that taxes are going up, whether it’s an election year or not. Better just to arrive by helicopter or Air Force one and announce the latest government bailout, right?

I’m just sayin’ . . .

Personal note – I’m back at my apartment in Plant City Florida (thanks your concern). No flooding. Roof still on. Long gas lines. Missing pets. We feel fortunate. But perhaps we should make certain we understand the cost of living in “paradise” before rushing here to enjoy zero state income taxes and all the random rattlesnakes, okay?

Homeowners face rising insurance rates as climate change makes wildfires, storms more common (qz.com)

LeopoldBloom · M

Glad you're OK. I was in Plant City once. I'm assuming you weren't a Strawberry Queen, not because of any lack of attributes, but from lack of interest.

I thought the "free market" would control insurance rates. If people can't afford flood insurance, they will either have to move away or take their chances. As for the federal insurance, I would say that it should continue in places where there is some public benefit in maintaining housing in those areas. You could ask, why do we have Social Security, where we're handing out checks to people who will be dead in a few years anyway? Because we collectively decided that it's in the public interest to not have old people dying in the street. So if a study shows that there's some benefit to having people live in hurricane zones, we should subsidize their insurance. The catch is that everyone has to contribute, not just the people still making mortgage payments whose lender forces them to have insurance. Risk pooling works better when the pool is as large as possible.

There's a very conservative SW member (T*xch*k) who has boasted about getting the county to pay for a runway on her property so she can land her plane by her front door instead of having to use an inconvenient airport, on the assumption that the runway could be used by others for "emergencies." Makes sense, I guess.

SusanInFlorida · 31-35, F

@LeopoldBloom i worked as a strawberry picker some years ago, when i first came to Plant City. If I never eat another one again, i won't complain.

MistyCee

Honestly, imo, yes, to a point. Both private insurance and government assistance work by spreading the risk, and abruptly and totally cutting out disaster assistance and federally subsidized flood insurance would, I think, be, well, "disastrous."

In the long term, its my personal feeling that the Federal Government has a role to play and shouldn't just let the States or worse, the free market decide completely whether to support populated port cities, coastal areas, flood plains, earthquake prone areas, etc, for much the same reason as its involved with highways, maritime commerce, etc.

Its beyond cavil that our Constitution doesn't mention insurance or disaster prevention, of course. Personally, I don't think it needs to, as long as its important to the common defense and the general welfare, but I know others disagree.