In the aftermath of Katrina (cont'd)
"In the aftermath of Katrina," the same editorial board that has faulted the federal government for its response to the hurricane nonetheless thinks that the federal government needs to subsidize hurricane-related insurance:
[Allstate President Thomas] Wilson proposed a system, not unlike the federal flood insurance program, for insuring against unpredictable disasters: earthquakes, storms or terrorist attacks. The insurance industry would sell the policies, administer the claims and use its actuarial expertise to set affordable prices. Following a disaster, insurers and reinisurers would bear losses up to fixed amount relative to their earnings and capital. After that states would use revolving funds to pay recovery costs, while the federal government would step in following a catastrophe that exhausted private and state ability to cover losses.
Wilson said federal and state taxpayers already pay recovery costs for natural disasters. It makes sense to plan and save for the time when the next disaster occurs, sharing the risk.
If the Chronicle editorialists caught wind of a lobbyist trying to get Tom DeLay to support subsidies for the insurance industry, they would be apoplectic. Yet when the president of an insurance company visits their offices secretly (why not post a transcript of the meeting?), they can't wait to trumpet his proposal?
In early comments on the response to Katrina, Fox News Special Report panelist Charles Krauthammer suggested that as part of the national compact, of course Americans would respond generously to the disaster. But he then suggested that for the future, it was fair to question whether the taxpayers of the Great Lakes region should necessarily be asked to subsidize those who live in paradise on a coast. It seems fair also to ask that question with regard to the Chronicle's endorsement of an insurance-industry proposal.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 09/15/05 09:04 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry