This is an issue that could be addressed at a
federal level as well: if the government can fund «
flood insurance» that in so many instances
subsidizes homeowners in wealthy communities who insist on building and living in places that are dangerous and inappropriate, why can't we establish something similar for low income families who want to take animals into their lives?
For example, in the United States, policies regulating
insurance and providing federal flood insurance and disaster relief have the effect of subsidizing risk - taking, and the recent repeal of large sections of the 2012 Biggert - Waters Federal Flood Insurance Reform Act shows just how difficult it is to reform these risk - inducing
insurance and providing
federal flood insurance and disaster relief have the effect of subsidizing risk - taking, and the recent repeal of large sections of the 2012 Biggert - Waters Federal Flood Insurance Reform Act shows just how difficult it is to reform these risk - inducing po
federal flood insurance and disaster relief have the effect of subsidizing risk - taking, and the recent repeal of large sections of the 2012 Biggert - Waters Federal Flood Insurance Reform Act shows just how difficult it is to reform these risk - inducing
insurance and disaster relief have the effect of
subsidizing risk - taking, and the recent repeal of large sections of the 2012 Biggert - Waters
Federal Flood Insurance Reform Act shows just how difficult it is to reform these risk - inducing po
Federal Flood Insurance Reform Act shows just how difficult it is to reform these risk - inducing
Insurance Reform Act shows just how difficult it is to reform these risk - inducing policies.
In Florida, which has the most
federal flood insurance policies in the country, 260,000 — or 13 percent — of them are
subsidized.