Aren't those living in flood zones required by federal law to buy flood insurance for their home?

[LiberalFighter]

Is Flood Insurance Required by Law?

In order to get secured financing to buy, build, or improve structures located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA's) you will be required to purchase flood insurance. Federally regulated lenders are required by law to determine if the structure is located in a SFHA and must provide the buyer with written notice that flood insurance will be required. In other words, for properties located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, no flood insurance, no loan.

[msongs]

1. no nt

[JuniperLea]

27. Mortgage companies demand it...

So if you live in a flood plane and you have a mortgage, chances are they are going to force you to get flood insurance. They will force you to have liability insurance regardless of your location.

[DailyGrind51]

33. I had to when I lived along the Des Plaines River in Illinois.

[Captain Hilts]

2. I know taxpayers subsidize part of it. nt

[thatgemguy]

3. No

I live in a flood plain, and flood insurance is not required by law. If you have a mortgage, the lender requires flood coverage.

[PSzymeczek]

31. About 20 years ago,

I bought a 2nd floor condo. The lender was going to make me buy flood insurance until I pointed out that it was a second-floor condo.

[havocmom]

4. If they have a mortgage

otherwise, I don't believe so. It is a requirement of lenders, to protect their collateral. You know, like auto loans requiring comprehensive coverage on any car that has a loan.

[frazzled]

5. You are certainly required to purchase homeowner's insurance when you buy a house

At least in the three states I've lived in and bought homes. Maybe you can drop it after the first year, I don't know. But you have to show proof of insurance to close on a house.

And some people are required to purchase mortgage insurance.

[havocmom]

9. It is lenders who require the insurance.

It is to protect the lenders, who actually hold the deed.

[joeglow3]

12. Not a government mandate

As everyone else here has pointed out, it is required by the lendor in exchange for them agreeing to loan you the money for house.

[frazzled]

15. Of course, but are you saying ...

you're fine with private interests mandating purchase of insurance but not the government? (Which is protecting its ability to underwrite the insurance of millions of Americans and lower costs for everyone).

Also, both mortgage lenders and insurance companies are subject to (mostly state) laws. Capitalization requirements would of course dictate that lenders protect their investments. So we're in really muddy waters here.

But it always intrigues me that people have no problems paying out required fees to private companies, but squeal like little babies if the government requires them to pay a nickel. It's a conservative, Republican world-view.

The mandates are legal. If you don't want to buy insurance, that's your prerogative. Pay the fines instead. No biggie. (Even if the mandates should be deemed unconstitutional by a right-wing Supreme Court, it still won't be a biggie: we can do something like Germany, and you can opt out of the mandate, but you'll have to agree not to buy from an exchange or receive a subsidy for a period of 5 years. It will accomplish the same near-universal coverage).

[joeglow3]

16. Constitution restricts the government

The government cannot limit your right to free speech, but private companies can. When I buy homeowners insurance, I am getting something in return (them loaning me money). When I get auto insurance, I get a privilege in return (the ability to drive on government roads). When I buy health insurance, the Federal government gives me NOTHING in return. Throw in my not buying insurance is me NOT being involved in interstate commerce, there is no legal footing I can see for this.

Don't get me wrong, I understand and agree with the premise. I just don't think it is constitutional.

[frazzled]

19. Buying insurance has nothing to do whatsoever with free speech

or not buying it, as the case may be.

But then, given that our rightward leaning SCOTUS has deemed campaign funding as a form of free speech, they could make the same egregious error with regard to this. But that doesn't make the argument true. The mandates are fully constitutional.

[joeglow3]

20. It is an example.

Just because something flies in private organizations, it does not mean the same for government.

That said, what is your support that they are "fully constitutional?"

[frazzled]

21. Well, here are some supporting arguments

From a professor of law, Wake Forest University, last summer:

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/08/25/is-it-unconstitutional-to-mandate-health-insurance/

And from an earlier post from Ezra Klein:

The summary is that you can look at the individual mandate as a tax, which is constitutional, or as a regulation forcing private actors to engage in a certain transaction, much like the minimum wage, which is also constitutional. I've also heard scholars mention auto insurance, which is an obvious analogue, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, which proved that the government can order businesses to install ramps, despite the fact that the constitution doesn't explicitly give the federal government jurisdiction over entryways.

It's also worth noting that Massachusetts has had an individual mandate on the books for a couple of years now. Its constitutionality remains unchallenged. And back in June, Grassley himself supported an individual mandate in health care. "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates," he told Fox News. He didn't add, "and to rip up the Constitution!" His colleagues Bob Bennett, Lamar Alexander, Norm Coleman, Bob Corker, Mike Crapo, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg and Trent Lott have also come out in support of an individual mandate, as they all co-sponsored Ron Wyden's Healthy Americans Act, which includes one. The constitutionality of the mandate has not been in question among Republicans
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/is_the_individual_mandate_cons.html

There are scores of other arguments you can google yourself, but the consensus is that the Supreme Court would defer to the legislative branches and never strike down the mandate. And even if they were to overturn precedents regarding the commerce clause and taxation prerogatives, it wouldn't matter much. There are other ways to achieve the near universal coverage the bill seeks.

On edit: an excellent summary article on the prospects here:

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/could_scotus_be_the_death_panel_for_health-care_reform.php

[joeglow3]

22. Full disclosure - I am a tax CPA

First, the "like a tax argument" does not fly. From a legal standpoint, every word carries a TON of weight. They intentionally did not call it a tax, so it is NOT a tax. No matter how much it resembles a tax, from a legal standpoint, it clearly is NOT a tax.

Second the first comparison they draw is to growing marijuana. The selling of this is CLEARLY partaking in an economic activity and, therefore, is eligible for the interstate commerce claim. Refusal to buy insurance is a complete absence of ANY economic activity. Next, they try to look at restaurants in the South. Again, these entities are, first of all, involved in commerce to begin with. Second, discrimination against blacks violates OTHER parts of the Constitution, thereby making any interstate commerce claims moot.

Frankly, the attempt to compare these are far stretching, at best.

I do agree that there is a good chance this gets dragged out and who knows what the make-up of the court will be.

Frankly, I would be interested in seeing what impact delcaring this unconstitutional would have to the overall bill.

[frazzled]

28. You're not a constitutional lawyer

I don't see the point. The vast preponderance of legal scholars believe the mandate is constitutional and that the courts are unlikely to strike it down. We do have a crazy court, so one never knows.

If you want to take the conservative, Republican stance on this, that's fine by me. But the mandate is a progressive idea, and pretty central to health care reform.

[joeglow3]

29. Don't pull the "conservative, Republican stance" card

I hate the bullshit. It almost screams "I can't discuss this, so I will resort to this."

I will be VERY happy if the courts declare it Constitutional. That said, you are living under a rock if you think "the vast preponderance of legal scholars believe the mandate is constitutional." I am simply trying to objectively look at it and I cannot see anywhere that would lead me to think this is allowed under the Constitution. And it is doubly frustrating because it is such a common sense answer to solve it.

[frazzled]

30. I don't know what you're reading (smoking, drinking)

But it is true that most legal scholars think the mandate is constitutional, and we've been hearing that all day, including from the AG, who says the DOJ will defend this vigorously and win.

Sorry, but the bullshit has not been on my part.

[joeglow3]

34. Really?

I would hope Holder would say that and would fight for it (and succeed). That said, I am betting you did not put that much faith in Ashcroft or Gonzales when they said torture was not against the constitution and that the DOJ would defend it vigorously and win.

And for the record, I truly hope you are correct. I think this is a KEY part of making the bill work.

[Romulox]

18. That's required by your Mortgage company, not the Federal Government. nt

[terrell9584]

35. The key word here

"To Purchase a House".


In other words, to avail yourself of some kind of privilege.

[abluelady]

6. Our Mortgage Company Required It

And if we didn't purchase it, they were going to purchase it through a government agency, which was more than twice what our insurance agent charged. Ironically, when the mortgage was sold, flood insurance wasn't required by that lender.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. It is about the loan. Not all who own property have a loan.

There is no law requiring flood insurance. So the answer to your question is just "NO".

[onenote]

8. Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and Natl Flood Ins Reform Act of 1994

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 and the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 made the purchase of flood insurance
mandatory for federally backed mortgages on buildings located in Special Flood Hazard Areas.

[havocmom]

10. So, no loan, no need to purchase.

It is not a universal requirement.

[mudplanet]

11. There is no law regarding the purchase of any type of homeowners insurance.

Mortgage companies my require it, but that isn't law.

[havocmom]

14. Correct

It's the lenders' requirement.

Seems too many pro-mandate voices just don't grasp that their 'other examples' just don't hold water.

[phleshdef]

13. We are mandated to give up money that goes to private industry for all kinds of things.

Name a program that your tax dollars are spent on, the military, the police, the public school system, medicare... any one of those programs purchase goods and services from private entities. Complaining that the government is only now forcing you to give up money that goes to a private entity is a failed argument. If you make that argument without insisting that government also provide all its own military resources directly, all its own educational materials, all its own hospitals, etc, then you are being hypocritical.

[Cleobulus]

24. You are arguing for single payer, not for mandates with this argument. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

17. Could the Feds require you to file a tax return even if you made no money at all?

[joeglow3]

23. No

See page 7 of the instructions:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040.pdf

[Phx_Dem]

25. My take on the "mandate" is "why should the rest of us have to pay

your very expensive medical bills because you decided not to get insurance? And it's a heck of a lot less expensive for the government to subsidize coverage for low-income earners than it is to pay for very expensive medical care when the uninsured get cancer, diabetes, stroke, hit by a car, etc." Suck it up and pay your share.

The wingnuts are always yapping about fiscal responsibility, so here's their opportunity to have some. If they already carry insurance, they have nothing to be concerned about.

[JuniperLea]

26. If you have a mortgage...

You are required to have all sorts of insurance.

And if you life in CA or similar states, you must purchase auto insurance as well.

If you operate a business, you need a lot of insurance too.

If you operate your business in a skyscraper, you need another kind of insurance as a condition of your tenancy.

Mandatory insurance protects the rest of us from any negligence.

The GOP health care plan is to go into an emergency room and wait... if you are lucky, you get to see a doctor before you die or suffer lasting ill effects. If you see a doctor, the cost is added to a column in their accounting that is ultimately covered by higher prices for medical care. When the insurance companies realize prices are going up, guess what they do?

This is NOT a sustainable situation.

We can only hope that EVERYONE who CANNOT afford the mandatory health insurance is given a benefit from the gov to cover. Until anyone like this is turned away, all this bullshit arguing is just that... bullshit. No, it's bull fucking shit.

[ibegurpard]

32. you don't have to buy a house...you don't have to buy a house in a flood zone

there's no alternative to living.