|
| Isn't the real question, how to design a better crop insurance system?
the article states:
"Even more startling is the disparity across different regions of the country. In the Corn Belt states of Indiana and Illinois, the program was not nearly as profitable for farmers. Soybean farmers in Illinois, for instance, got only 12 percent more money back than they paid into the program. But in the South and the Great Plains, it was a different story. Cotton farmers in Texas, and corn farmers in Arkansas, got more than $3 back for every $1 that they paid into the program from 2000 to 2014."
If this general relationship is accurate (i.e., low risk areas over pay and high risk areas underpay), is this the way it should be?
The article states:
"Under the Babcock plan, the government would give each farmer a grant that he or she could use to buy insurance. That grant would be enough to pay for catastrophic coverage on crops: It would pay farmers if their revenues were less than, say, 65 percent of an average year. But farmers would have to buy private insurance, with no government subsidy, for anything beyond that."
Do you think this is a better approach?
Joel
WIU Agriculture
Edited by jbgruver 2/14/2016 09:40
| |
|
Has anyone else seen this crop insurance article ?
