#15 - Are you suggesting that FEMA does not provide funding support for disasters other than flooding? Simply click on any of the links I previously provided and select a listed event. Chances are it will show the amount of financial support FEMA provided. Here's an example:
This lists $88.2m of individual and household funding as having been provided for a fire event. It seems inherently unlikely that much of this was provided under the flood insurance program, so to address your first point, clearly there are mechanisms for FEMA to provide federal assistance outside of flood insurance, even if, as I readily admit, I do not know what they are called.
Sometimes I find it necessary to cycle back to why I posted a comment, or risk getting off topic and inadvertently defending something I don't actually believe.
The point with which I originally took issue was this " We should abolish all incentives for people to live in flood-prone areas, like the federal flood insurance program". My objection was that there is nowhere in the US which is free of natural disaster threats, so if you promoted this idea, you should accept that any type of federal funding which compensated or assisted victims after an event should be eliminated, because it provides a similar incentive to live in risk prone areas. I provided links to FEMA to show that indeed, many more disaster types than flooding are addressed by this federal agency.
To address your last point, the consistency is therefore not "doing away with the flood insurance program" but doing away with all federal funding programs, however structured, that provide " incentives for people to live in" natural disaster risk zones.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a position I hold.