| > Who gets to defines the risk? Free market insurance actuaries. >Does it matter if a place gets a powerful earthquake every 5 years or 20 years? Yes, of course. >The entire premise of the suggestion is simply nonsense. No, just needs more science and economics math on what makes sense and are reasonable lines to draw. > More people are killed in high crime areas than in storm prone areas, and they are killed daily. Do you have stats that back this up on a per capita basis? > Do we tell people they can't live there, either? If you can ascertain that the above is true per capita and that the federal government is footing the bill through social security survivorship benefits, maybe. The objection is not that people can't live and where they want - it's that they expect someone else to subsidize it. Life insurance takes into account where you live. In non-FEMA flood insurance areas, flood insurance is significantly more expensive. >If you don't take any risk then you are not really living. The issue is they aren't taking risks - they're socializing their risks onto people who don't live in flood zones. If they were actually taking the risk of having to rebuild, we wouldn't be having this conversation. |