![]() |
| (In the United States the flood damage are compensated of a public insurance program) |
Studies conducted at the parliamentary level, in fact, it's become very clear as to the criteria applied to charging by the NFIP, at least in some cases, see the application of prizes significantly lower than those normally required by sound management. This fact, however, is the consequence of the fact that the NFIP does not reflect the purposes of profit typical of private insurance companies and that in consequence of this a comparison between the tariff policies applied by industries as diverse is entirely improper.
In practice, the program has been specifically bounded in order to tailor it to local communities and encourage them to implement regulations on the prevention of flood damage so distinguished by the use of incentives designed to make the widest possible participation in the Plan. The main difference between the NFIP and private insurance are not only the rates for discounts and subsidies to assist groups most at risk, but also the cost structure, management is not explicitly oriented financial balance of the budget and the presence a number of regulatory restrictions, such as to bind the management decisions that are taken within the program.
A choice on the model of the National Flood Insurance Program in our country, could actually be a good wayto tackle the problem posed by the repeated natural disasters that strike cyclically on our country, and which find fertile ground to do damage due to instability hydrogeological which no government has ever thought to deal seriously, preferring to favor the logic emergency. A choice that hand has been disastrous for the public purse, so much so that the government, on release to that effect, leaving a real legal vacuum that would be filled now with a mandatory insurance, in front of which the same companies insurance showed great coolness.

