I don't understand this post at all.
1) If you don't live in a flood zone, the standard homeowners policy does not cover flood damage, so flood claims are impossible. That is the problem in Houston -- large percentage of the flood damage was not in flood zones and not covered by any insurance. Generally the only people covered in event of flood are people who are required to buy flood policies by their mortgage lender -- and that is houses that are located in flood zones.
2) To equate flood insurance to earthquake, tsunami etc is ridiculous. In fact the federal government does NOT pay to subsidize insurance in earthquake zones. We lived in Seattle, which is overdue for an 8 or 9 level earthquake that would absolutely level the residential parts of the city. Almost nobody's homeowner's policy will help when that happens. You can buy earthquake policies but they are extremely expensive and extremely limited coverage -- because they are not subsidized by the Uncle Sam. I just think it's weird that the government will subsidize insurance for luxury vacation properties in the path of hurricanes, but not for any other kind of risk.
3) Isn't it funny how wealthy people who rail about big government and "socialism," who would rather have people go bankrupt and die from medical conditions, who want to repeal Obamacare -- those very same people feel entitled to have the government subsidize their vacations? We call stuff socialism when it benefits somebody else. When it benefits us, we call it essential government services. Rich people are usually all for socialism as long as it's reverse socialism -- taxing the many to subsidize the few.