It might be difficult to establish a policy regarding such a sensitive topic as insurance coverage of natural disasters that would ensure that both customers and insurers are satisfied. However, it is possible to establish the risks associated with the location of a household and calculate insurance premiums in accordance with them. It is counterproductive to rebuild houses after every disaster in their area, and I believe that higher insurance costs should reflect that. At the same time, the destruction of property is not something that should be ignored by the government. The primary incentive provided by FEMA in a case where the incident could have been prevented must include an opportunity to move from the area into a more suitable for a family, especially if they are unwilling to put up with the risk costs.
There is a difference between insurances on households that are located in tornado-prone and flood-prone areas. These two types of insurance have a significant difference in the available data that helps with risk assessment. Floods are more predictable, and it is possible to create a map for each flood-prone area that would allow insurance companies to calculate the exact cost of premiums (Bernard, 2013). However, there are cases in which the government must help people who are unable to avoid the adverse impact of natural disasters, such as the issue with outdated flood maps. In turn, there is a critical factor that prevents companies from establishing a clear set of rules regarding insurance coverage for tornadoes. There is a lack of scientific data that would provide an adequate prediction of their occurrence (Pappas, 2013). The costs associated with these risks must also take into consideration the possibility and feasibility of prevention measures available to people.
References
Bernard, T. S. (2013). Rebuilding after sandy, but with costly new rules. The New York Times. Web.
Pappas, S. (2013). Can we protect against the next Moore tornado?Yahoo News. Web.