I forgot a pretty obvious and useful one- more community shelters. It would cost some money of course but there really should be enough elevated concrete shelters available for the entire population of a community, ideal distributed geographically to make them easily accessible to everyone including the elderly and those with no means of transportation besides hoofing it.

I doubt that loss of life and property in hurricanes or other disasters can ever be completely eliminated, losses could however be much reduced in a number of ways.

In areas prone to flooding, require that all new construction be of at least two floors.
In areas of extreme risk prohibit new construction entirely, unless it can be shown that the structure is flood proof. Require that all new construction in relevant areas be hurricane proof.

And whilst hurricanes are the present concern, let us not overlook other disasters.
In areas prone to wild fire, all new construction to be fire resistant.Tighten up building codes for earthquake resistance.

In areas were cold weather is a danger, require that all new homes have an off grid means of cooking and heating part of the home, such as a stove or fireplace.

There is a lot that national and local government can do to prohibit building that is unsuited to the risks of the area, whether the risks be fire, flood, cold, or other.

However individuals also need to do more in the way of personal preps. Look at the crowds, some of them panicking, seeking to buy water at the least minute. It would be more sensible to always keep a stock of water, food, fuel, batteries and so on, rather than to panic buy at the least minute.
If you choose to live in a low lying area, buy a boat.
If you choose to live in an area of high fire risk, make your home as fire resistant as possible.

Very true! Life will always have risks and dangers. Until we come up with the 'weather dissipation grid' from Star Trek TNG there will always be tornados, blizzards, etc. Common sense and proper building types can mitigate a lot of dangers but probably not eliminate them entirely.

Apropos of nothing, life would be a lot safer if most homes were monolithic concrete domes. They are virtually fireproof and supposedly can withstand a direct hit by an F4/F5 tornado. If homes were built this way about the only risk would be flooding.

Don't build in flood plains.
Don't build where there are earthquakes.
Don't build where there are wild fires.
Don't build where there are targets for terrorists.
Don't build near giant caldera's like yellowstone.
Don't build where droughts and heat extremes are common.
Don't build near blizzard country.
Stay away from places where ticks and mosquitos carry disease.
Avoid rural areas where medical care is distant.
Avoid urban areas where crime is high.

And certainly don't pay for other people's mistake to do so.

Oh, and in case you think the midwest might be okay, don't forget tornados.

"And certainly don't pay for other people's mistake to do so."

yes, exactly right. that's the crunch - right there.

America has been unable to return to sensible policies based on common sense,. We can't get there until the country stops the Federal handouts and the massive insurance payouts.

If you look back at previous generations .e.g. the Americans who lived during the years 1900-1950, they were a very practical and highly resourceful people. Because they HAD to be. There was no other option. Therefore, that old economy was based on real work, and sensible outcomes for people who avoided risks.

America is having enormous problems because of greed - a failure to return to this COMMON SENSE SIMPLE option. The country will literally go bankrupt if we don't.

ONE PRACTICAL OPTION
that would move us in the right direction - if Fed funds only pay for part of the damages. For example, if Federal funds only cover 30% of losses, then home owners and businesses must pick up the difference. That would put an end to the "financial racket" very quickly.

I'm not sure if this is sincere or meant as a joke and certainly not all of the suggestions are plausible. Some are not even possible; for instance as Earth warms there probably won't be any places to live where there aren't droughts and high temps, that will just be the new normal. Nor are all of the listed items particularly dangerous. For example blizzards can occur almost everywhere in the US and Canada so not living there is problematic unless we abandon North America. And while blizzards can and do result in deaths nearly all of those could be prevented by proper preparation. Lastly you can't control what a terrorist decides to target so that doesn't even make logical sense.

Of course some of the list is pretty spot-on. It's not wise to build on an active volcano. It's not smart to build on a site where there have been 18 floods bad enough to destroy your home in 50 years. Wildfires- that's an interesting one. I think that proper forestry management can mitigate the risk of the kind of out-of-control fires we see now, but certainly climate change is making the task more difficult. It might be wise to have some regulations concerning how and where to build and what steps must be taken (eg clear cut zones around residential areas, etc).

So, where exactly do we build? The west coast is on the Ring of Fire, the east coast and gulf coasts are prone to hurricanes, and everything in between is subject to blizzards, heat waves, flooding, or tornadoes.

You can build to a 50 year storm, good until you get hit with a 200 year storm. You can build to a 200 year storm, but good luck finding enough people who can afford to live in an area with a 200 year infrastructure.

If it gets knocked down, you build it better. You update the building codes, and make sure they're enforced (Northridge and Ismit quakes). And, you make sure the insured pool is large enough to tolerate regional disasters.

Don't forget meteors. Don't live somewhere a meteor might hit.