Let's do no harm. Right now, under existing law, NFIP is moving toward an actuarially sound premium program.
The NFIP really should not be considered an insurance program at all.
Clearly the NFIP systematically underprices flood insurance, and frustratingly, it is the policies of Congress that are ...
It helps move the discussion to data and science and away from what are local politics, in many cases.
there is a way to have a sort of independent verification of whether or not the risk pricing is as fair as it can be
Finding a consensus on reauthorization will be challenging, and time is tight.
We should not interrupt that progress.
But I would think the taxpayers are the people who should support that and not lower-risk policyholders within the NFIP.
I am hoping that we can find the common ground necessary to avoid a 17th short-term reauthorization.
I think about the repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties in particular.
I think the current system of NFIP is not working properly, it is problematic for taxpayers who have to bail it out, yea...