With thousands of people in New York and New Jersey still struggling with damage caused by Superstorm Sandy, the federal government’s flood insurance program is receiving some overdue attention. The program, which fell $18 billion in debt after Hurricane Katrina, is in trouble.

This week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York requested $30 billion in aid from the federal government. At a time of tight budgets and $1 trillion annual deficits, the federal government is squeezed, and Sandy relief funding might not flow as easily as post-Katrina money.

For the National Flood Insurance Program, the picture looks bad. More than 115,000 claims have been filed for flood damage from Sandy and that figure could grow. After Katrina, the flood insurance program fell deeply into debt and Congress capped additional debt to $3 billion a year.

The problems involve not only the massive impact of big storms like Katrina and Sandy, but the perennial and structural under- funding of the program.

Homeowners in flood-prone areas do not pay anywhere close to the level of premiums that would be justified by the risks. The result is that taxpayers across the rest of the country end up subsidizing homeowners who choose to live on the coast, in the predictable path of hurricanes.

Some progress was made over the summer when Congress allowed premium increases to go through for homeowners repeatedly filing flood-damage claims.

According to a report in the New York Times, even with the higher premiums, it will be years, if ever, before homeowners in flood-prone areas pay premiums that reflect the risks.

The federal flood insurance program was created in 1968 and policies must be bought by any homeowner with a federally backed mortgage if they live in a flood-prone area. According to the Times’ report, the average premium is $650, with some high-risk areas paying $1,200 to $3,000.

The annual premium income to the program is about $3.5 billion. But in recent years, with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, claims topped $17 billion.

Now, Sandy will be added.

Storms are a naturally occurring risk along the coast, with the Gulf of Mexico and parts of the Atlantic coast being particularly vulnerable. Some say today’s storms are worse because of global warming.

Leaving that debate aside, the potential for massive financial losses has increased because people enjoy living by the ocean. They love the view of the waves — and, for many, the closer the better. In addition, commercial development along parts of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts has built on land that long ago worked as a natural barrier, absorbing some of the storm surge.

The federal program has been marked by the crazy and counterproductive pattern of repeatedly paying to rebuild homes damaged by storms year after year.

One property in Biloxi, Miss., was flooded 15 times over a dec-ade. The federal flood program paid $1.47 million to repair and rebuild the house — valued at $183,000. Similar examples reveal a disturbing lack of oversight and common sense.

To make matters worse, suggestions to minimize the damage of storms, such as building large sand dunes between homes and the waves, are often fought by homeowners who don’t want to sacrifice their ocean view.

Many homeowners and businesses that suffered major flood damage, or lost everything, in Superstorm Sandy did not have federal flood insurance. That will put political pressure on Congress to help the uninsured. It’s a tough call — or should be.

There must be a balance between compassion for storm-ravaged residents and fairness to taxpayers. How much should be spent in high-risk areas when many opt not to buy flood insurance or resist reasonable precautions?

Sandy’s historic size and power argue for special federal aid. But at the same time, taxpayers should understand the flaws in the federal flood insurance program and push for reforms to make it self-sustaining.

Why subsidize people who choose to live on the beach — and in the path of powerful storms.