[grania]

Those in the flood zones should pay what it costs to insure them. In addition to that, once the house has been paid for the owner should not be abloe to get flood insurance again for a house on that property. The payout for any one house, over the years, should not add up to more than the assessed value of the house. In that case, the owner could stay there, but never collect for flood damage again.

The reason the feds subsidize flood insurance is that it's not profitable for the insurance companies. Maybe people and communities should adjust and build smaller houses along the coast, so the owners can absorb losing the house to a flood. Why should be subsidize zillionaires who build palaces in areas that are going to flood at some point or another?

[Neidermeyer]

This isn’t a “gazillionaire” tax , this is a tax on everyone that lives near any water.. In Florida historically the Insurance premiums have been about 4x the payouts on claims. So reduce our premiums.. we’ve been subsidizing the rest of the country for many decades.

[SeeSharp]

once the house has been paid for the owner should not be abloe to get flood insurance again for a house on that property.

Why? If there is a private insurance company willing to sell him insurance and he is willing to pay for it then let him have it. It is only government subsidized flood insurance that he shouldn't be able to buy again. But then, I don't think the government should have been subsidizing flood insurance in the first place.