Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 2565

Should FEMA Have to Use the Actual Replacement Cost of a Property When Calculating Flood Insurance Premiums?

Argument in favor

FEMA’s current formula for determining flood insurance premiums uses a national average replacement cost rather than the property’s actual cost, meaning that lower-income policyholders overpay and higher-income policyholders underpay. This bill would fix that by requiring FEMA to use the property’s actual replacement cost.

Janene's Opinion
···
08/30/2017
FEMA’s current formula for determining flood insurance premiums uses a national average replacement cost rather than the property’s actual cost, meaning that lower-income policyholders overpay and higher-income policyholders underpay. This bill would fix that by requiring FEMA to use the property’s actual replacement cost.
Like (91)
Follow
Share
Ticktock's Opinion
···
08/30/2017
Why does this not amaze me. The poor paying for the flood insurance of the rich. This happens far to much. Use the real cost involved and refund the over charges that have been made to the poor. Yes, base the cost of flood insurance on actual cost of replacement and the actual cost should be reviewed periodically.
Like (61)
Follow
Share
Leo's Opinion
···
08/30/2017
Property costs can vary greatly depending on location. This is better than the one size fits all method.
Like (29)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

There are issues with the way that FEMA is calculating flood insurance premiums and the issue needs to be studied to see if there’s a way to fix that inequity, but this bill would make too big of a change to soon to flood insurance markets and could make it harder to afford coverage.

James 's Opinion
···
08/30/2017
The government needs to get out of the property insurance business and let owners pay the full cost of insuring their property. This program merely distorts the true costs of living in unsafe areas. Maybe, if this is done, there will be more rational development around our country's flood prone areas.
Like (39)
Follow
Share
Brian's Opinion
···
08/30/2017
If this wasn't in the middle of a disaster maybe the argument could be made. But doing this now seems like some sort of flimflam to me. It's sad I just don't trust Republicans to not spin this somehow to fatten their own wallets. I see so many people doing everything they can to help the victims of this awful storm and a lot more help will be needed. The fact is I would be devastated to lose everything. But I think the whole experience would be humbling and you be happy to have a roof over your head and a means to feed your family. I would be very distraught if I wasn't made whole again after something like this. But in the end it's about survival. And do you really need that McMansion if it means some poor family ends up on the street to make that happen? If your answer is yes shame on you.
Like (13)
Follow
Share
Brad 's Opinion
···
08/31/2017
I had no clue the fed govt was in the insurance business. How about just have each person buy the insurance they can afford on the open market. Why are all other tax payers in other states paying for another persons insurance? Who's paying my catastrophic property insurance policy? Oh that's right! Me!! I feel like I'm getting robbed!!
Like (6)
Follow
Share
    FEMA’s current formula for determining flood insurance premiums uses a national average replacement cost rather than the property’s actual cost, meaning that lower-income policyholders overpay and higher-income policyholders underpay. This bill would fix that by requiring FEMA to use the property’s actual replacement cost.
    Like (91)
    Follow
    Share
    The government needs to get out of the property insurance business and let owners pay the full cost of insuring their property. This program merely distorts the true costs of living in unsafe areas. Maybe, if this is done, there will be more rational development around our country's flood prone areas.
    Like (39)
    Follow
    Share
    Why does this not amaze me. The poor paying for the flood insurance of the rich. This happens far to much. Use the real cost involved and refund the over charges that have been made to the poor. Yes, base the cost of flood insurance on actual cost of replacement and the actual cost should be reviewed periodically.
    Like (61)
    Follow
    Share
    Property costs can vary greatly depending on location. This is better than the one size fits all method.
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    This is a no brainer. If you buy a more expensive car you get to pay more for replacement, same rule should apply to housing.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    As someone who works in the insurance industry, absolutely.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes it is the actual house that's being replaced not the average house being replaced.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes and one step further it should be tied to a homeowners insurance policy and managed by the insurance companies. Government bureaucrats are useless and would create chaos for no reason. All they do obstruct not construct. No flood insurance if no homeowners.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    If this wasn't in the middle of a disaster maybe the argument could be made. But doing this now seems like some sort of flimflam to me. It's sad I just don't trust Republicans to not spin this somehow to fatten their own wallets. I see so many people doing everything they can to help the victims of this awful storm and a lot more help will be needed. The fact is I would be devastated to lose everything. But I think the whole experience would be humbling and you be happy to have a roof over your head and a means to feed your family. I would be very distraught if I wasn't made whole again after something like this. But in the end it's about survival. And do you really need that McMansion if it means some poor family ends up on the street to make that happen? If your answer is yes shame on you.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    The alternative would be rebuilding a home with three walls. Replacement is the only way to go.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes, they absolutely should use replacement cost. Replacement cost will replace the damage done to the home at what it would cost to repair or rebuild today. People seem to be confusing the meaning of replacement cost from the comments I have seen so far. I sold insurance and owned my own insurance agency so I know what they mean when they say replacement cost. If you use actual cash value then you are deducting the age of the home. So if your house is 20 years old and you're only giving actual cash value then you're taking what it cost to build that home 20 years ago and not what it's going to cost today. Materials and labor go up each year so replacement cost keeps up with those changes. Actual cash value does not and in the end, these people will pay tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket to replace their home.
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    You felt that he was better just because he gave you more when he has $200 and all i had was $10. Maybe this will help you "get " it.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I had no clue the fed govt was in the insurance business. How about just have each person buy the insurance they can afford on the open market. Why are all other tax payers in other states paying for another persons insurance? Who's paying my catastrophic property insurance policy? Oh that's right! Me!! I feel like I'm getting robbed!!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Bankers and government officials conspired in the largest crime in history to defraud home owners by more than three trillion dollars ($3,000,000,000,000) and now they don't want to pay people displaced in emergencies fair market value. Right.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Perhaps more low income households could afford flood insurance if premiums were based on replacement cost. Other methods distort the true cost of ownership. The premiums are overall too low now, which is why FEMA is in debt, since the government subsidizes development in flood prone areas.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Include a caveat so the climate deniers in the WH cant add addendum's to play politics (such as diverting federal aid money to build a stupid wall)
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Replacement cost estimates for anything but actual replacement cost are not true replacement. FEMA estimates need to be based on what it actually costs in the region where the damage is. Using national averages as a baseline doesn't take regional costs into account. Actual cost places the burden more evenly on all property owners.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Average-smaverage!!! Replace means replace what you lost at what it costs... need to do same with auto insurance!!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Both homeowners and businesses across the country depend on the accuracy of flood maps in making decisions about flood insurance and flooding risks. It’s time to make sure the program is on sounder financial footing, that taxpayers are protected from footing the bill for future losses, and it’s time to shift power from bureaucrats in Washington to states, local communities and policyholders. This legislation would ensure that FEMA would use a property-by-property approach when it comes to pricing for premiums, helping to end the subsidization of wealthier homeowners.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Equitable
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE