Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Article Is Reporting That Ron Paul Is Forcing People To Buy Flood Insurance

  1. #1

    Article Is Reporting That Ron Paul Is Forcing People To Buy Flood Insurance

    This article is criticizing Ron Paul for supporting an amendment that would end the federal govt.'s role as an insurance company:

    Apparently, The Federal Government CAN Force People To Buy Insurance (According To Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul, It Isn't Unconstitutional After All)

    Forcing people to buy insurance is Unconstitutional – right?

    At least that's the argument being made by twenty-eight states now. Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Virginia, Wyoming, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Maine, Arizona, Alaska, Kansas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Idaho have all filed lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act – based on their claim that it violates the Commerce Clause.

    From the lawsuit:

    “It has never been held that the Commerce Clause [of the Constitution] … can be used to require citizens to buy goods and services. To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods and services would deprive the Commerce Clause of any effective limits.”

    And they may be right, although most cases heard so far have decided otherwise.

    But sometimes, forcing people to buy insurance doesn't violate the Constitution. At all. Especially when a person's decision to refuse insurance will directly impact the Federal Government.

    And that’s the ironic situation we find ourselves in today. Because a recent, unanimous vote in the House Financial Services committee will force millions of people to buy insurance, in virtually every state. And the Federal Government also has the right to raise premiums on that insurance by up to 20% per year.

    The issue involved is the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is currently $17.5 billion in the hole. Seems that there have been a lot of floods in the last decade, and the NFIP is having trouble paying on it's claims.

    But like health insurance, the decision to buy flood insurance has been a voluntary action for most people (there are exceptions – flood insurance is mandatory in designated floodplains). And premiums were renewed annually. The Finance Services Committee proposal will change that – substantially.

    What was once an annual policy will now be linked to the term of the mortgage (10, 20, 30 years), and it will be mandatory in low-lying areas that have never been designated as flood plains. Furthermore, if you sell your NFIP-insured home, the buyer MUST continue the insurance.

    From the recently-passed House Committee proposal:

    “We recommend that Congress and the Administration revise the 1968‐established National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which covers more than $1.2 trillion of assets today, by moving from annual insurance contracts to long‐term policies tied to property...

    “One‐year flood policies are problematic because many people buy the insurance when they get a mortgage or immediately after a flood, but do not keep the coverage for the long term… As a result of these cancellations, there are likely to be a large number of uninsured victims after the next flooding disaster…we propose that consideration be given to long‐term flood insurance (LTFI). By tying policies to the length of the mortgage (10, 20, 30 years), insurance will be directly linked to the property. A further step would be to require that all properties in flood‐prone areas have coverage, just as auto insurance is required on all vehicles. When a resident moves to another location, the flood insurance policy would remain with the property.”

    The proposal is expected to pass the full House soon.

    So can we expect that Republican Committee Members from states opposing the Federal Government's efforts to force people to buy healthcare insurance will be strongly opposed to this mandatory Federal insurance as well?


    From those states that brought you numerous lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act (and it's unconstitutional requirement that violates the Commerce Clause), the following Republican committee members want to force you to buy this insurance:

    Alabama – Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus

    Florida – Bill Posey

    Texas – Ron Paul, Randy Neugebauer, Jeb Hensarling, Franscisco Canseco

    Oklahoma – Frank Lucas

    Michigan – Bill Huizenga

    Pennsylvania – Michael Fitzpatrick

    Virginia – Robert Hurt

    Wisconsin – Sean Duffy

    Ohio – James Renacci, Steve Stivers

    Arizona – David Schweikert

    Georgia – Lynn Westmoreland

    Michelle Bachmann has also voted for the proposal. Along with dozens of other Republicans.

    That's just the Committee members. Depending on how the proposal passes in the full House, we may actually see some interesting and hard-to-explain conflicting behavior here. Stay tuned.


    I didn't see Bachmann's name on the list of supporters according to this article:

    38 Congressman stood up for liberty on Tuesday night when they supported Rep. Candice Miller’s amendment to the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011, which would end the Federal government’s role as an insurance company and pass the ability to run such programs down to the states.

    Rep. Miller said it best, “Why in the world is the federal government in the flood insurance business?”

    Only 35 House Republicans had the conviction to vote in support of ending this wasteful program.

    The amendment offered by Rep. Miller would have brought an end to the federal government’s role as a flood insurance provider through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by January 1, 2012. Further, the amendment would have allowed the states to form interstate compacts to provide flood insurance.

    Rep. Miller was right when she pointed to the utter failures of the NFIP. We have seen government programs just like this one time and again, and they always work the same. Money is wasted, taxpayers bail the program out, and then more money is wasted.

    But what makes the NFIP even worse than the regular program is that it is designed to be bankrupt. The government is insuring people that would not be insured in the private insurance market because they would not be able to afford the premiums that a private companies who have a fiduciary responsibility to be solvent would have to charge to insure their property.

    If the federal government was not encouraging folks to live in these flood zones by providing insurance when no one else would, then the government would not have to shell out billions of dollars because they are insuring extremely risky choices. Essentially the NFIP exists to redistribute the wealth of people that live above sea level to those that live near or below it.

    The NFIP is nothing more than a bottomless pit of government waste.

    Supporters of the Amendment:

    Barton (TX)
    Broun (GA)
    Brown (FL)
    Duncan (TN)
    Franks (AZ)
    Gallegly Goodlatte
    Graves (GA)
    Miller (MI)
    Mulvaney Myrick
    Price (GA)
    Walsh (IL)

    Paranoia is having all of the facts.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Looks like there was some sort of misreporting here. Ron Paul DID vote in favor of the amendment.

    But it sure would have been nice to see the author of the article issue a correction and apology, rather than simply edit and re-write the article and not acknowledge his mistake, which is apparently what he did. Check the article again, and compare it with what's pasted above.

  4. #3
    As the author of the article, I can swear up and down that it was never changed. Ron Paul always stood on the side of downsizing government. The author of this thread, libertygrl, must have misread the post originally. But I never wrote anything at all close to what is posted here in this forum.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by NRD View Post
    As the author of the article, I can swear up and down that it was never changed. Ron Paul always stood on the side of downsizing government. The author of this thread, libertygrl, must have misread the post originally. But I never wrote anything at all close to what is posted here in this forum.
    Welcome to the site Adam, hope you stick around. It appears to be a misunderstanding. The erroneous article in question is actually linked halfway through her post:
    You'd think a physicist would pay a bit more attention to detail; but then again maybe that is why he is "retired".
    Last edited by specsaregood; 07-21-2011 at 09:11 AM.

  6. #5
    Thanks for the welcome! I will be sticking around!

Similar Threads

  1. NY Times article on national flood insurance and moral hazard
    By tsai3904 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-19-2012, 06:32 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2012, 10:17 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-28-2009, 10:28 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 02:34 PM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-03-2008, 04:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts