As the flood waters recede in parts of England it has become clear tens of thousands of homes have been affected.
The insurance industry says claims related to flood damage will total £1.5bn.
We asked if you had made an insurance claim linked to the recent floods and who you thought should foot the bill for the uninusred. This debate is now closed.
If taxpayers' money is used to help flood victims, the same percentage should be paid to everyone affected. Those who are properly insured would then receive a payout on their policy, less the government funding. This way those who pay for insurance will not feel unfairly treated, and we will all benefit from the fact that future insurance premiums will not have to rise quite so much as they would do otherwise.
A local developer who built on field that was known to flood, and where there was a spring, is now offering to repair the houses that recently flooded. I completely agree with the Nottingham MP on Money Box that developers should have to insure against flood for the 20 years - also maybe personal liability on the council who gave approval.
Mike Davis, East Yorkwhire
People who don't bother to buy building insurance should be made to pay back the money that the tax payer lends to them.
If householders wish to spend their money on beer, holidays or plasma tvs that is then their problem. We sensible people should not pay for their stupidity! The government should not allow building on flood plains! Equally stupid!
Mike of Swansea
Isn't it amazing that when an uninsured person suffers a loss individually they have to cope on their own but when it's part of a more generalised event then the taxpayer is expected to bail them out? Those who choose the benefits of spending their money on something other than insurance should not expect the taxpayer to pay when things go wrong. Those who buy houses that cannot be insured because of an unacceptable flood risk should have done their homework before the purchase and will also have benefited from the lower price they paid for it in the first place so I'm afraid I don't feel any responsibility to them either. Councils on the other hand probably do need taxpayer assistance to reinstate damage to local infrastructure.
A Dell, Glasgow
If my car is at the side of the road with no insurance and it's hit by a passing truck then it's my tough luck. if these people have not bothered to insure their property then again it's their tough luck. They knew the risks, global warming is happening and if you don't live on the top of a hill, then get your home insured.
Andrew McCallig, Cumbria
I pay house insurance for the risk to my property, not other people's property. Those who have chosen not to have house insurance made that choice. I do not see why I should pay for their property damage. Perhaps the people who should pay are the developers, builders and individual council members who have allowed these properties to be built on flood plains in the first place.
I pay just over £300 a year for contents and building insurance. Why should I as a tax paying pensioner - £200 a month tax - pay towards those who didn't bother to take out insurance cover but still can afford cigarettes, drink and bingo?
Bob Baker, Clacton On Sea
I spent an austere childhood as my parents made financial sacrifices to pay for a mortgage, insurance and pensions. I lived an austere life as I chose to have a mortgage and insurance and made pension arrangements and now pay not inconsiderable taxes and have no wish to see them diverted to those who have chosen not to suffer such austerity but think that I should subsidise their financial chickens coming home to roost.
Anne Wheelhouse, Hawkhurst, Kent
Whilst some flood victims should have given a higher priority to insuring their property, I believe we should show compassion to people facing total ruin. Let us not forget it is government policies such as immigration that required the vast number of houses to be built on flood plains and it surely follows that it is their duty to ensure the rivers and drains are capable of protecting them. Don't call it an Act of God, it is failed government for which we must all take responsibility.
R Harris, London
Why should the wise pay for the foolish? Their bills will probably be much the same as the premiums paid by the insured over many years.
Douglas Cook, Cockermouth, Cumbria
An uninsured house holder in a flood area may get a grant from the flood fund. But would an uninsured house holder get any help if they had similar loses on an individual scale, say a fire in May?
As someone who is fully insured I find the comments by those moaning about people's lack of insurance miserable. Many people cannot afford insurance. Even if they have plasma TVs - so what. They are still deserving of our help. In my experience, insurance companies do anything in their power not to pay out. I have twice had to employ a solicitor to ensure they pay up. People do not have the money to take these companies on.
Simon Hutchings, Ottery St Mary
It seems to be that we are paying for everyone who makes a dubious decision these days. I don't really feel that flooding is my problem and I certainly don't want to have to pay to bail these people out, although I do feel sorry for them. Perhaps people who live in areas where flooding is going to be a problem should be paying into their own fund to cover costs in such an eventuality. I can see my bank account being raided by the government, yet again, to pay for this and it's not on.
I'm not surprised that some properties are uninsurable. Over the last few decades, building has taken place on plots with too high a risk of flooding and/or subsidence. The most worrying thing though is that this process still continues today.
Chris Grey, Guildford
I for one am heartily tired of people who chose not to insure their goods now implying it is someone else's fault and that someone else (ie the taxpayer) should bail them out. I would be pretty sure they all have all the usual expensive goods, and large TVs, DVDs and stereos etc. Everyone regards these things as essential but not all want to pay the premiums to insure them. Well those of us who pay insurance should not have to bail out those who chose not to.
Rob Bacon, London
As someone who lost their roof in the Birmingham tornado, I felt very lucky in having the insurers agree to a new roof fairly quickly (within three weeks). However, we had to live in the house for over six months from July to January with tarpaulin for a roof, winds whistling through and further damage from rain and the work (ceilings collapsing in the bedrooms and bathroom). The insurers eventually paid £63,000 out of a total bill approaching £72,000, so we were £9,000 out-of-pocket in addition to the stress of living in a building site. But we still counted ourselves lucky compared to many of our neighbours who had insurers dragging out assessments, builders who did shoddy work, and landlords with no insurance.
Mike Cummins, Birmingham
The comments we publish are not necessarily the views of the BBC but will reflect the balance of views we have received. It is helpful if contributors state if they work for any organisation relevant to an issue discussed. Readers should form their own views on whether messages published represent undeclared interests, or views prompted by a common source.