NFIP: No Mandate, No "Pre-Existing Conditions"

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

We've had a national, single-payer insurance system for years. It is called the "National Flood Insurance Program", or NFIP.

There's no mandate-- nobody is required to purchase flood insurance. And, what a lot of people don't know is that this program has consistently discriminated against people with pre-existing conditions since its inception.

Lenders will often require flood insurance, but in spite of the hype that everyone is over their heads and drowning in debt on a home worth less than what is owed on the mortgage, more than 40% of residential real estate in America is owned "free and clear" of any mortgage lien.

Many of these homes are in low-lying, small towns in the flood ravaged areas along the Mississippi River. As it turns out, once your home has been damaged by flood, it's TOO LATE to buy flood insurance.

This is OUTRAGEOUS and should be reformed IMMEDIATELY. Why should the government discriminate against home owners just because they have already sustained flood damage.

I recommend that Congress take the following actions right away:

1. REQUIRE that everyone buy flood insurance.

2. Make sure that everyone effected by flooding has access to flood insurance regardless of any "pre-existing conditions". People should be ENTITLED to insurance even if their home has already been destroyed.

There's no problem with this, right?

[ugonow]

Naw... it is better to bet it will be declared a disaster area and then get all that free aid. PS--- most lenders do require flood insurance to those buying in a 100 yr flood plain. But private insurance is hard to find and very expensive.It is too high of exposure to risk . So most buy FEMA coverage.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Well, I guess when you bring up FEMA-- there IS Federal "pre-existing condition" coverage. How's that working for us?

[Opti]

This is from the guy who says government is too involved and should stay out of private business affairs?

"I recommend that Congress take the following actions right away:

1. REQUIRE that everyone buy flood insurance.

2. Make sure that everyone effected by flooding has access to flood insurance regardless of any "pre-existing conditions". People should be ENTITLED to insurance even if their home has already been destroyed."


One of your new rentals get destroyed or something?

You can always start a insurance company that will do as you propose. Its possible the insurance companies don't do this now because it is unprofitable. I'm not buying flood insurance because I don't need to.


ETA: Do you really want the federal government to start superceding state laws on home insurance, etc.

[Deleted]

LOL, Paul!!! I got it!!!

[EVT1]

"There's no problem with this, right?"

Other than that is the worst analogy I have ever read. It isn't remotely close to a single payer anything.

If you didn't buy the insurance for floods and live in a flood plain, well, it sucks to be you.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2011 11:19:38 GMT -5 Opti said:

This is from the guy who says government is too involved and should stay out of private business affairs?

"I recommend that Congress take the following actions right away:

1. REQUIRE that everyone buy flood insurance.

2. Make sure that everyone effected by flooding has access to flood insurance regardless of any "pre-existing conditions". People should be ENTITLED to insurance even if their home has already been destroyed."


One of your new rentals get destroyed or something?

You can always start a insurance company that will do as you propose. Its possible the insurance companies don't do this now because it is unprofitable. I'm not buying flood insurance because I don't need to.


ETA: Do you really want the federal government to start superceding state laws on home insurance, etc.

Really? I mean, c'mon. Sometimes the is necessary, but is it really necessary at ALL times even in the most blatant and obvious instances when I am brilliantly demonstrating why there can be no individual heath insurance mandate, and why forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions is impractical by using the government run flood insurance program as the example?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 21, 2011 13:50:45 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

"There's no problem with this, right?"

Other than that is the worst analogy I have ever read. It isn't remotely close to a single payer anything.

If you didn't buy the insurance for floods and live in a flood plain, well, it sucks to be you.

And if you're an AIDS infected, promiscuous, sky-diving, motorcyle-riding, obese, drug-addicted smoker-- well, I guess it also sucks to be you.

[Deleted]

LOL, Paul!! You're killin' me!!!

[cereb]

Bad analogy.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

We've got flood insurance, and we're not in a flood zone. We think of it as "water damage coverage" because it covers a lot of things our regular homeowner's insurance doesn't cover. For us, it's $365 for the maximum coverage available ~ which is cheaper than our earthquake insurance (and has better deductibles.)

[Opti]

"Really? I mean, c'mon. Sometimes the is necessary, but is it really necessary at ALL times even in the most blatant and obvious instances when I am brilliantly demonstrating why there can be no individual heath insurance mandate, and why forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions is impractical by using the government run flood insurance program as the example? "

Yes, it was necessary to use.

It wasn't a brilliant analogy BTW. If you wanted to actually debate single payer healthcare do so. I would like a single payer system but would expect most pre-existing conditions would not be covered.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

We have health insurance, too.

[ugonow]

Nope,not gonna force me to buy flood insurance when I buy in a flood prone area.I will wait until it happens then file for disaster relief aid. That's free.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

You can actually get a quote for flood insurance from the NFIP website.

www.floodsmart.gov

[EVT1]

May 21, 2011 14:42:52 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Really? I mean, c'mon. Sometimes the is necessary, but is it really necessary at ALL times even in the most blatant and obvious instances when I am brilliantly demonstrating why there can be no individual heath insurance mandate, and why forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing medical conditions is impractical by using the government run flood insurance program as the example?

Brilliant? You are a legend in your own mind. All you have demonstrated is a poor understanding of single payer, HCR, NFIP- a poor understanding in general. It must take some real effort to get things that wrong.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Nobody has a poorer understanding of the issue than a person that actually favors ObamaCare and thinks NFIP is working well.

[marshabar1]

May 21, 2011 19:02:30 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

We've got flood insurance, and we're not in a flood zone. We think of it as "water damage coverage" because it covers a lot of things our regular homeowner's insurance doesn't cover. For us, it's $365 for the maximum coverage available ~ which is cheaper than our earthquake insurance (and has better deductibles.)

Who was talking recently about a situation where roof damage resulted in water damage? The insurance was calling it flood damage and refusing to pay?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 23, 2011 11:32:57 GMT -5 @marshabar1 said:

May 21, 2011 19:02:30 GMT -5 ❤ mollymouser ❤ said:

We've got flood insurance, and we're not in a flood zone. We think of it as "water damage coverage" because it covers a lot of things our regular homeowner's insurance doesn't cover. For us, it's $365 for the maximum coverage available ~ which is cheaper than our earthquake insurance (and has better deductibles.)

Who was talking recently about a situation where roof damage resulted in water damage? The insurance was calling it flood damage and refusing to pay?

The insurance company can attempt to say that the roof leakage was not the proximate cause of the water damage if there was a flood that caused the damage.

Let's say that the roof leaked and did damage all the way down to the basement, but that the flood waters rose to a level just below the second floor. They can claim that the flood was the proximate cause of the damage from the second floor down and then only pay for the damage caused by the roof leakage (and the roof, of course).

Technically, if the roof leak damaged the property BEFORE the flood damaged the property-- the insurance company would have to pay for that. Good luck documenting that.

[morrisr2d2]

Houses aren't people.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

There's no mandate-- nobody is required to purchase flood insurance. And, what a lot of people don't know is that this program has consistently discriminated against people with pre-existing conditions since its inception.

First off, the people themselves can't have that pre-existing condition unless they themselves were flooded, which could happen, but when people are "flooded" like that, the laymen's term is "drowned," and in that case, they died and will have "dead" as their existing condition, so the "pre-existing" point is moot.

As for the land itself having a "pre-existing condition" of being flooded, wouldn't every place have it? Between the Biblical, etc. flood, and/or if you prefer, if you go way back at some Geological age, it seems that anywhere you go, it has been flooded at one time or another. Since we're already in Sillyville, we might as well bring that up too.

And if you're an AIDS infected, promiscuous, sky-diving, motorcyle-riding, obese, drug-addicted smoker-- well, I guess it also sucks to be you.

"Acne, Pregnancy Among Disqualifying Conditions"
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803501.html

...

"Health insurers have issued guidelines saying they could deny coverage to people suffering from such conditions as acne, hemorrhoids and bunions."

And if you've had bunions, acne, or were pregnant-- well then, it sucks to be you. And compare the percentage of people that are "AIDS infected, promiscuous, sky-diving, motorcyle-riding ..." to those conditions I quoted. Check and mate (just don't get pregnant or you can be denied coverage).

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I'm pretty sure you can still purchase flood insurance even if you're pregnant or have acne.

[Mkitty is pro kitty]

I'm pretty sure you can still purchase flood insurance even if you're pregnant or have acne.

What if you have fertile land? Wouldn't that be a pre-existing condition for the property?

[❤ mollymouser ❤]