Background:
Americans consider the U.S. as a nation of giving, compassionate people. They
willingly support any number of domestic and international causes that bring
relief and hope to those in need. But the increased need for global disaster
assistance, some analysts point to what they call “Donor Fatigue.” This describes
a situation where people no longer give to causes that they supported in the
past. Among the causes attributed to this phenomenon is overstretched budgets,
negative reaction to pressure tactics, and mismanaged donation
campaigns. Another factor cited is that some programs provide assistance that is
not warranted.
Critics point to the National Flood Insurance Program as an example. For
example, the National Flood Insurance Program is experiencing problems because
of extensive flooding in the past few years. The program had to pay out more
money than it was able to take in. Many insurance companies refuse to
underwrite flood insurance in certain locations because the potential liability
exceeds the premiums they can charge. The US National Flood Insurance
Program resulted from the recognition that private insurance companies can’t
provide coverage at affordable rates that would allow them to be
profitable. Critics assert that taxpayers should not be required to subsidize those
who choose to build in known floodplains – they know the risk, they should
accept the risk.
Question:
Support your position if the National Flood Program subsidizes the risk of a
minority of Americans and should be continued or discontinued.
Support your position with cited examples and recommendations
