Pat H - 10/29/2015 06:57 The idea of going to a subsidized insurance model appeared to smooth out the spending spikes that disaster payments represented. Going to a countercyclical support program seemed to make sense in conversation, but the question is whether not government wants or should be involved in manipulating production and markets. I do wonder about farms that use PP all the time (8 out of 10 years). Seems less than practical and I would hope insurance premiums reflect that level of risk. If the subsidy went away would premiums reflect risk levels more (like having a house full of teenage drivers)? Political tin foil hat (or seed hat): Typical of liberal administrations, they feel they should be running everything because they are smarter and listen to npr more than most folks. So, consolidation fits perfectly with their goals even if it's seems contrary to the anti-big business rhetoric. The idea that it saves the "family farm" doesn't fit so well and it would seem that it's more aimed at consolidation of farms (though it didn't save ILFF, but might some day). I have an opinion that government types don't like the diversity in farming and would much rather have just a few folks to deal with. Even in hog production the continous flow of epa regulations tend to make it more difficult every year for anyone not large enough to have a regulations department staffed with 13 folks. I really hope the epa gets reigned in. Billy Clinton would have done it to stay popular, not sure Hillary would though (I'm pretty sure elections will be cancelled and Teri Gross will crown Hillary president). I hope I'm joking.