That is the whole point. If you want to live in a flood zone either accept the risk that you can lose everything or be able to afford the insurance. The government subsidizing it simply makes everyone else pay for those that choose to live in a risky area. Why should anyone else have to pay for those bad decisions.
While I agree that the insurance would be more expensive it would be available. Insurance companies insure all kinds of things not just high volume items and the market for flood insurance is plenty big enough for them to take the business.
Originally Posted by Laz
The point is there is no private insurance available and you indicated in your post that is who should be taking care of the flood damage rather than the government. If you want to change the equation and just say, well, nobody should live near the ocean or a river, we can do that I suppose.
We could evacuate the US coastlines, the Mississippi River delta and all other locations at risk for a flood. Of course, by doing that, we'll decrease the private insurance risk pool to the point that it will increase any private insurance premiums to the point that virtually nobody can afford to live in those locations. Good plan!
And, if the market for flood insurance is plenty big enough, then why isn't there one? Again, do you think the insurance companies would not be jumping on this market for flood insurance that you say exists if, in fact, it did exist? Carriers won't write the risk, they can't make any money on it.