FL Residents--Does it bother you that...

[ducklite]

-----------------------------

I understand the "why" of the situation, but the same advice you have given to those folks should apply to yourself as well - shouldn't it? If it bothers you to have to absorb these extra costs, you have the exact same option as people who have been let down by Citizen's - move so you don't have to deal with it.. Correct?

I guess what I'm getting at is why is it okay for you to complain and remain in the same location where the problems exist, but when others complain, you tell them to move?

Because we are complaining about two different things.

I am complaining that I have to subsidize their choice of where to live. I get nothing out of it, and have no choice in the matter. This is not low income housing. These are people who own their homes and have assets they choose not to use to pay their bills. What is being done amounts to Socialism in the State of FL, rather than a free market society.

They are complaining that they can't afford market rate insurance where they live. My point is that if you can't afford to live someplace, than move, don't expect someone else to pay your "rent". I'd like to live in Trump Tower. I can't afford it. Does that mean that everyone else in NYC should have to pitch in for me to live there?

Anne

 

[marlasmom]

C. Ann I think you are missing Anne's point. We live here by choice (actually Dh's choice but that's a different story). Like Anne we have a newly constructed house (but nowhere as nice as hers), have a good credit rating and have had no problem obtaining relatively inexpensive insurance with a good company. Originally we had GEICO, then we got a letter from GE saying they had a program for people like us (excellent driving records and credit history) and we saved a lot of money going to GE. Then GE sold to AIG who raised our auto premium $150. I shopped around and am now insured with Travelers who I believe is a solid company although I didn't do the research that Anne did, at relatively modest rates. I certainly will not be happy if I have to pay a greatly increased premium due to people being underinsured or living in substandard housing who have large losses. We take care of ourselves. Like Anne, I contributed voluntarily to help people here who were so badly affected by the hurricanes last year - and there are still blue tarps on roofs around here, but the key word is VOLUNTARY.

 

[C.Ann]

C. Ann I think you are missing Anne's point. We live here by choice (actually Dh's choice but that's a different story). Like Anne we have a newly constructed house (but nowhere as nice as hers), have a good credit rating and have had no problem obtaining relatively inexpensive insurance with a good company. Originally we had GEICO, then we got a letter from GE saying they had a program for people like us (excellent driving records and credit history) and we saved a lot of money going to GE. Then GE sold to AIG who raised our auto premium $150. I shopped around and am now insured with Travelers who I believe is a solid company although I didn't do the research that Anne did, at relatively modest rates. I certainly will not be happy if I have to pay a greatly increased premium due to people being underinsured or living in substandard housing who have large losses. We take care of ourselves. Like Anne, I contributed voluntarily to help people here who were so badly affected by the hurricanes last year - and there are still blue tarps on roofs around here, but the key word is VOLUNTARY.

-----------------------------

I understand that.. But the fact remains that you DO (or probably "will") have to pay this surcharge for the folks with Citizen's and unless you (collective you) can find a way to change those laws, you are left with the same alternative as the Citizen's folks - pay it or move.. Right?

 

[ducklite]

-----------------------------

I understand that.. But the fact remains that you DO (or probably "will") have to pay this surcharge for the folks with Citizen's and unless you (collective you) can find a way to change those laws, you are left with the same alternative as the Citizen's folks - pay it or move.. Right?

I've already written letters to my representatives to express my concern over this matter. So yes, I am doing something about it, or at least attempting to, and have been encouraging all of my friends to do so as well.

Like MarlasMom said, I donated a considerable amount of money to help out after the hurricanes. But I did that because I wanted to, to help the causes I wanted to help, as opposed to giving welfare to people who can afford to pay their bills, but might have to cut back someplace else to do so.

If everyone in my situation was to move, it could be interesting, because there would be nobody left for a bail out.

Anne

 

[C.Ann]

I've already written letters to my representatives to express my concern over this matter. So yes, I am doing something about it, or at least attempting to, and have been encouraging all of my friends to do so as well.

Like MarlasMom said, I donated a considerable amount of money to help out after the hurricanes. But I did that because I wanted to, to help the causes I wanted to help, as opposed to giving welfare to people who can afford to pay their bills, but might have to cut back someplace else to do so.

If everyone in my situation was to move, it could be interesting, because there would be nobody left for a bail out.

Anne

-------------------------------------

That's good - because there is power in numbers - and I wish you all the success in the world.. I'm not saying that it's "correct" or "fair" that you should have to pay this surcharge, was just pointing out that it was rather one sided to tell others to move because of circumstances they don't like when you in fact have the same option..

Good luck with the battle!

 

[TnTsParty]

from Sunsentinal.com ~ Citizens is the second-largest home insurer in Florida, and the largest in South Florida. The company covers the wind portion of insurance policies for homeowners and renters who live east of Interstate 95

This proves my point that Citizens is the ONLY insurance company the covers the wind portion of insurance policies - and let me tell you that area covers a wide range of economic ranges. Some people including myself are just NOT at liberty to move - and to us its not a choice.

I agree with C.Ann and like I said before if its such a choice don't you have a choice to stay in Florida or move????

 

[ducklite]

from Sunsentinal.com ~ Citizens is the second-largest home insurer in Florida, and the largest in South Florida. The company covers the wind portion of insurance policies for homeowners and renters who live east of Interstate 95

This proves my point that Citizens is the ONLY insurance company the covers the wind portion of insurance policies - and let me tell you that area covers a wide range of economic ranges. Some people including myself are just NOT at liberty to move - and to us its not a choice.

I agree with C.Ann and like I said before if its such a choice don't you have a choice to stay in Florida or move????

So instead you collect what amounts to welfare? Citizen's should be charging higher rates to their insureds, not to everyone else in the state. If my insurer had big losses they wouldn't be able to surcharge you. Why should your insurer be able to charge me for your coverage?

Anne

Anne

 

[TnTsParty]

Sorry but I don't consider it welfare when it the ONLY insurance that is AVAILABLE. But then again there is no arguing with your holier than thou attitude.

 

[ducklite]

Sorry but I don't consider it welfare when it the ONLY insurance that is AVAILABLE. But then again there is no arguing with your holier than thou attitude.

The part that is welfare is that you are paying rates that aren't high enough to fund your company, then imposing what amounts to a tax on the rest of us to pay for your coverage.

I've said before, I have no problem with principle behind Citizen's--offering insurance to those that can't find it on the open market. What I do have a problem with is it's lack of fiscal responsibility. It needs to be run in a manner that it costs taxpayers nothing, so that those who use the company pay to keep it afloat.

My attitude is not holier than thou, it's basic free market economy. No one has answered my question--why should those not insured by Citizen's be surcharged to pay for Citizen's losses, when we can't pass the losses the companies we are insured by on to CItizen's customers?

BTW--That article was incorrect, there is at least one major company that does write wind coverage east of I-95, on high end homes ($1M and up--which isn't that much these days!) as part of an umbrella liability package.

Anne

 

[TnTsParty]

What you fail to realize is that at I do pay more by having Citizens and I will be getting a rate increase again this year on top of the rate increase last year. I don't know any company that hasn't raised their rates in the past few years. And sorry you must not know this area very well or you would know that there is alot of areas east of 95 that are NOT considered high end and therefore Citizens IS the ONLY insurance company that ALOT of people can get. By the way my house cost me $80k 7 years ago and now houses in my neighborhood are selling for over $400K so you tell me how I have a CHOICE of where I live - I could not sell my house and buy else where and be able to afford it.

 

[ducklite]

What you fail to realize is that at I do pay more by having Citizens and I will be getting a rate increase again this year on top of the rate increase last year. I don't know any company that hasn't raised their rates in the past few years. And sorry you must not know this area very well or you would know that there is alot of areas east of 95 that are NOT considered high end and therefore Citizens IS the ONLY insurance company that ALOT of people can get. By the way my house cost me $80k 7 years ago and now houses in my neighborhood are selling for over $400K so you tell me how I have a CHOICE of where I live - I could not sell my house and buy else where and be able to afford it.

You still haven't answered the basic question. Why should I have to pay for your insurance?

Anne

 

[LBKB]

PLEASE think of others feelings when posting!

 

[chrissyk]

I have mixed feelings about this, and I'm sure that I'll get flamed for saying so. We do have our house insured through a private insurer. However, we were RIGHT on the cusp of where we would have had to go through a high-risk insurer or Citizen's due to the location of our house. While I don't like subsidizing Citizen's, I won't complain too much because I know darned well that the next owners of my house could end up having to insure through them. I don't want to own an uninsurable house, or a house that costs so much to insure that I can't resell it. Hence, I guess that paying that extra on the insurance is my insurance that this house is still insurable. I hope that that makes sense.

 

[ducklite]

I have mixed feelings about this, and I'm sure that I'll get flamed for saying so. We do have our house insured through a private insurer. However, we were RIGHT on the cusp of where we would have had to go through a high-risk insurer or Citizen's due to the location of our house. While I don't like subsidizing Citizen's, I won't complain too much because I know darned well that the next owners of my house could end up having to insure through them. I don't want to own an uninsurable house, or a house that costs so much to insure that I can't resell it. Hence, I guess that paying that extra on the insurance is my insurance that this house is still insurable. I hope that that makes sense.

The point is that insurance WILL be available through Citizen's, so the house will be insuranble.

Here's the sticking point for me. Bottom line. I have to subsidize Citizen's losses, yet those insured by CItizen's aren't forced to subsidize any losses my carrier my have. There is no equity. It's a tax to provide welfare for homeowners. While I'm sure some in areas where Citizen's is the primary insurer wills truggle to pay their increased insurance, there are many wealthy people who wouldn't even notice. There are also many people in areas where they have private insurance, and to them that added preumium will really hurt.

As I said before, I have no problem with the concept of Citizen's. What I have a problem with is that it is not run in a fiscally responsible manner.

Anne

 

[doubletrouble_vb]

Ducklite... ALL taxes provide welfare for the beneficiary. I don't have children...but when I owned my own home I paid $2,000 a year so that those who do have children could collect a welfare benefit to send their children to school. The a portion of the other $1,600 went to welfare benefits so that those who lived in homes that burned down or in bad neighborhoods that got greater police and fire protection than I did. Essentially what I got for my $3600 a year in property taxes were garbage, leaf & yard debris pick up, road surfacing, street lights, parks and snow plowing...that was the welfare benefit I received from my town.

Citizen's is not a private insurance company. If it has a shortfall the good citizens of Florida who let such an ill thought out welfare benefit arise in Florida must pay the piper. Sure the company should have charged enough to have sufficient reserves but how long has this entity existed? Probably not long enough to build up said reserves without charging a prohibitive rate to the policyholders. At the same time it doesn't sound like they were charging nearly enough even if homeowners were paying more than those in other locations. Truthfully I can't figure out why Florida went this route to begin with...a better bet would have been to force all carriers who want to do homeowners business in Florida to carry those homeowners in high risk areas at substantial but state mandated surcharge...then all you have is a much smaller administrative overhead of assigning the poor risks to carriers rather than duplicating administrative overhead.

In another era last years hurricanes would have led to the logical economic consequence of bankruptcy of some carriers, bankruptcy of those citizens who couldn't get their claims paid, plummeting house values and ultimately the abandonment of near water properties. For a very long time people did not live on or near the ocean. In this era we don't allow that to happen...so everyone must pay because somebody has to pay and we choose not to let law-abiding people live with the consequences of their decisions.

To Tnts Yes you are making a choice to live where you are. You could sell your home and move to...say Alaska...away from everyone and everything you've ever known. People migrate all the time when the option of leaving is better than the option of staying. For you that is not yet your situation so you choose to stay.

 

[ducklite]

Ducklite... ALL taxes provide welfare for the beneficiary. I don't have children...but when I owned my own home I paid $2,000 a year so that those who do have children could collect a welfare benefit to send their children to school. The a portion of the other $1,600 went to welfare benefits so that those who lived in homes that burned down or in bad neighborhoods that got greater police and fire protection than I did. Essentially what I got for my $3600 a year in property taxes were garbage, leaf & yard debris pick up, road surfacing, street lights, parks and snow plowing...that was the welfare benefit I received from my town.

Citizen's is not a private insurance company. If it has a shortfall the good citizens of Florida who let such an ill thought out welfare benefit arise in Florida must pay the piper. Sure the company should have charged enough to have sufficient reserves but how long has this entity existed? Probably not long enough to build up said reserves without charging a prohibitive rate to the policyholders. At the same time it doesn't sound like they were charging nearly enough even if homeowners were paying more than those in other locations. Truthfully I can't figure out why Florida went this route to begin with...a better bet would have been to force all carriers who want to do homeowners business in Florida to carry those homeowners in high risk areas at substantial but state mandated surcharge...then all you have is a much smaller administrative overhead of assigning the poor risks to carriers rather than duplicating administrative overhead.

In another era last years hurricanes would have led to the logical economic consequence of bankruptcy of some carriers, bankruptcy of those citizens who couldn't get their claims paid, plummeting house values and ultimately the abandonment of near water properties. For a very long time people did not live on or near the ocean. In this era we don't allow that to happen...so everyone must pay because somebody has to pay and we choose not to let law-abiding people live with the consequences of their decisions.

To Tnts Yes you are making a choice to live where you are. You could sell your home and move to...say Alaska...away from everyone and everything you've ever known. People migrate all the time when the option of leaving is better than the option of staying. For you that is not yet your situation so you choose to stay.

Thank you for a well thought out comment.

This is key:

" At the same time it doesn't sound like they were charging nearly enough even if homeowners were paying more than those in other locations."

That's my point, plain and simple. They weren't charging even close to enough, let alone fund long term reserves.

"Truthfully I can't figure out why Florida went this route to begin with...a better bet would have been to force all carriers who want to do homeowners business in Florida to carry those homeowners in high risk areas at substantial but state mandated surcharge...then all you have is a much smaller administrative overhead of assigning the poor risks to carriers rather than duplicating administrative overhead."

Again, I agree. If MY carrier suffered heavy losses, I'd have no problem helping to assume the risk, as if I were the one with a loss, it would be covered for me by others as well. I have no problem with my carrier taking on some higher risk policies, because with those higher risks will come higher premiums.

The problem here is that an inefficient quasi-public entity has been given the powers to tax for what amounts to welfare for homeowners. IMHO Homeowners insurance is like taxes. If you can't afford to pay, then you can't afford your home, and you need to look at other housing options.

Anne

 

[C.Ann]

This sounds like the "which came first - the chicken or the egg" arguement.. Everyone has a choice here.. If someone cannot afford the higher rates for better insurance, they can move out of Florida.. If someone is so highly offended at having to pay a surcharge, then they too can move out of Florida..

Why should one be told to leave but it's fine for the other to stay and complain about it?

If anyone doesn't like the situation - regardless of what side of the fence you're on - the same option exists for both - move!

 

[TnTsParty]

You still haven't answered the basic question. Why should I have to pay for your insurance?

Anne

Here is an answer to your BASIC question - you AREN'T paying for MY insurance - did you just cut the check I just sent - didn't think so - so don't say you are "paying" my insurance.

And let me tell you its not something I enjoy paying for - considering I STILL have not heard from them since 10/24!! Nice to know that I am paying for NOTHING (oh and since you feel you are paying for my insurance you are paying for nothing as well!!)

So when I pay my taxes and I have to pay for public school I am paying welfare for someone elses child to go to school - I have no kids so I am not paying for my kid to go to school so obviously I am paying for someone elses kid. Is that considered welfare too?

 

[ducklite]

Here is an answer to your BASIC question - you AREN'T paying for MY insurance - did you just cut the check I just sent - didn't think so - so don't say you are "paying" my insurance.

I'll rephrase--why should I subsidize your insurance?

And let me tell you its not something I enjoy paying for - considering I STILL have not heard from them since 10/24!! Nice to know that I am paying for NOTHING (oh and since you feel you are paying for my insurance you are paying for nothing as well!!)

Makes me feel better

So when I pay my taxes and I have to pay for public school I am paying welfare for someone elses child to go to school - I have no kids so I am not paying for my kid to go to school so obviously I am paying for someone elses kid. Is that considered welfare too?

Ah--but the difference is that you were also educated by taxpayers, as was I. There's a HUGE difference there. Public education is a right afforded by the governemnt to all children in this country. Since when is it a "right" to own a home you can't afford without subsidy?

Anne

 

[TnTsParty]

Ah--but the difference is that you were also educated by taxpayers, as was I. Anne[/QUOTE]

There you go again assuming things about me - I went to private school so no my education was not paid for by taxpayers but paid for by my father.