Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is the world becoming uninsurable?

charleshughsmith.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 1001 posts

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#231

Post by mgiampapa »

csomar wrote: post #51
mgiampapa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about profit caps? I feel like government stepping in and being the insurer with a sufficiently large pool of risk to spread around lets them set a fair rate without the need to make a return or answer to shareholders. To some extent this has helped with health insurance. Each year I get a check back from my insurer saying they didn't spend enough on my care vs my premiums.

Sure. Because the response of a failure in governance is more government? What you are proposing is "unfair". You are essentially suggesting that the rest of the country subsidize a subset who wants to live near high-risk areas. Me too want to live in a dense forest and also have my house by the edge of the river. You could make the argument for this for healthcare, since no one can choose which illness he is born wi…

I'm not saying everyone pays the same, I'm saying you take away the for excessive profit nature of insurance. If you live in a tinderbox you are going to have more risk and more costs. Yeah somebody has to model the risk and set a price, but I'm saying it shouldn't be someone who has an incentive to make as much profit as possible.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#232

Post by rcpt »

throw0101a wrote: post #76
Aurornis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately these discussions almost never go well, because it seems that most people have at best a surface level understanding of what insurance is and how it works, and everyone is convinced that it's a full scam and insurance companies are fabricating everything I have the exact same experience when discussing anything insurance related: People have wild assumptions about how much profit insurance companies a…

> When you point out that, for example, health insurance profits are low single digit percentage of overall healthcare costs they just don’t believe it. Meanwhile, the health care providers: > But if you look at the list of companies with the highest [return on equity], you see health care providers or suppliers like HCA Healthcare (272%), Cencora (234%), Abbvie (84%), Mckesson (84%), Novo Nordisk (72%), Eli Lilly (5…

Definition of "healthcare provider" really confuses me. Why is my nurse lumped together with people researching drugs? Is the CEO of the hospital a "provider"?

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#233

Post by distortionfield »

novok wrote: post #157
Aurornis wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unfortunately these discussions almost never go well, because it seems that most people have at best a surface level understanding of what insurance is and how it works, and everyone is convinced that it's a full scam and insurance companies are fabricating everything I have the exact same experience when discussing anything insurance related: People have wild assumptions about how much profit insurance companies a…

Health insurance's issue is probably how it induces pure waste everywhere as everyone has to play this dance of ever escalating paperwork which consumes a lot of labor. It's not profit, it's waste. Same with the ever increasing amount of admin. Why is that admin increasing? I estimate insurance or requirements created by insurance is part of the cause. There is also a lot of other smells of a lack of a competitive ma…

This is spot on. It’s not that I think health insurance companies are making insane profit margins. It’s that their very existence in the system is a pure negative and in fact a moral blight. Inflicting profit into a system that is entirely dedicated to human health is by definition a conflict of interest for basically everyone involved, even if it operated at a hypothetical 100% efficiency.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#234

Post by hakfoo »

roenxi wrote: post #179
iandanforth wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Correctly" is doing a lot of work here. Some readers might miss that this is double edged. Insurance is a mandated product . You don't have a choice if you want a mortgage, or want to run a business. So while it is true that the sustainable price for insurance in many areas is higher than what current regulations allow, let's not forget what happens in an unregulated insurance market; price gouging.

If the regulators have defined 'price gouging' as a price substantially below the break even mark, literally any profitable insurance product is implicitly believed by them to be price gouging. The US does a weird thing where "insurance" no longer means pooling risk but some sort of transfer payment welfare system. If they're going to define "price gouging" as profitable activity it is hard to see how the economy is…

The math of insurance suggests that, if it needs to be widely carried (either due to things like mortgage requirements, or the simple realization most people don't have enough resources to absorb a major catastrophe themselves), the most economical way to go is to have a single risk pool that's as broad and diverse as possible, so it can swallow a large clustered crisis more easily. Yes, this is a bit of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I always found it funny when insurance marketing talks about "personalized rates", when the goal is to DE-PERSONALIZE the risk. If you have 10,000 customers in Los Angeles, and 5 million elsewhere, you can either isolate the LA customers and charge them the "real" price of the risk, which will be unviable as a business and probably politically touchy too, or you can include them in the broad pool, and the people with a full-cinderblock home in a non-flammable state pay $20 more a year so the entire endeavour can work.

The concept probably works better if you have some concept of social cohesion to lean on-- you might not get the best possible outcome personally, but the system itself is more robust for everyone.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#236

Post by rcpt »

lmm wrote: post #99
bluedevil2k wrote: post #8

Like we see in California, when the government sets a price ceiling, insurance companies just leave. Same in Florida. If the free market truly was allowed run normally, the insurance rates in Pacific Palisades or on the Florida coast would be so high that no one could afford to live there. Is that a bad thing? If someone was living in a house near where they tested missiles, we'd call them crazy. At what point can we…

Don't worry, the California government is responding to that by making it illegal to stop offering insurance in the state. That will definitely fix the problem.

Gotta catch up to Florida

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#237

Post by loeg »

margalabargala wrote: post #193
iandanforth wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Correctly" is doing a lot of work here. Some readers might miss that this is double edged. Insurance is a mandated product . You don't have a choice if you want a mortgage, or want to run a business. So while it is true that the sustainable price for insurance in many areas is higher than what current regulations allow, let's not forget what happens in an unregulated insurance market; price gouging.

Price gouging isn't actually what we're seeing in the most disaster prone areas. Insurance companies aren't charging open ended prices, they're simply exiting the market. Florida for example.

I believe Florida market exits had more to do with litigation-friendliness than premium caps or disaster risks. E.g.,

> In 2020, 79 percent of homeowners insurance lawsuits nationwide were in Florida—even as the state accounted for only 9 percent of the U.S. homeowners insurance claims, according to the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.

There were some recent reforms in response (HB 837, 2023; SB 2-A, 2022).

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#238

Post by mgiampapa »

cowsandmilk wrote: post #38
mgiampapa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about profit caps? I feel like government stepping in and being the insurer with a sufficiently large pool of risk to spread around lets them set a fair rate without the need to make a return or answer to shareholders. To some extent this has helped with health insurance. Each year I get a check back from my insurer saying they didn't spend enough on my care vs my premiums.

> How about profit caps? What period do you put it over for property insurance? Profit caps work for health insurance because claims are typically not correlated. The percentage of your customers with cancer won’t 5x one year and go back to baseline the next. New drugs or treatments (or a drug going off patent) can cause correlated swings, but generally costs to health insurers don’t change a lot year to year. For pr…

The book of business has to be large and the pockets deep. Which describes our current insurance market and the government. The way we handle this now is with reinsurance.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#239

Post by scarab92 »

Animats wrote: post #107

Not uninsurable, but buildings are going to have to become tougher. It's happened before. Chicago's reaction to the Great Fire was simple - no more building wooden houses. Chicago went all brick. Still is, mostly. The trouble is, brick isn't earthquake resistant. Not without steel reinforcement. I live in a house built of cinder block filled with concrete reinforced with steel. A commercial builder built this as his…

Wood for earthquake resistance vs masonry for fire resistance seems like a false dichotomy.

Australia has a lot of experience with building fire resistant homes, and they didn’t do it with masonry, they did it with timber and steel framed homes, plus fireproof cladding and roofing materials, keeping a perimeter free of vegetation and protecting against ember ingress.

It is possible to have both earthquake and fire resistance in a stick framed home, without the expense of resorting to reinforced concrete.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#240

Post by roenxi »

hakfoo wrote: post #234
roenxi wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the regulators have defined 'price gouging' as a price substantially below the break even mark, literally any profitable insurance product is implicitly believed by them to be price gouging. The US does a weird thing where "insurance" no longer means pooling risk but some sort of transfer payment welfare system. If they're going to define "price gouging" as profitable activity it is hard to see how the economy is…

The math of insurance suggests that, if it needs to be widely carried (either due to things like mortgage requirements, or the simple realization most people don't have enough resources to absorb a major catastrophe themselves), the most economical way to go is to have a single risk pool that's as broad and diverse as possible, so it can swallow a large clustered crisis more easily. Yes, this is a bit of robbing Pete…

What if Paul built his house somewhere less flammable? I see options here where Peter doesn't need to be robbed, he could pay a fair rate and Paul could make less risky decisions.

If one pool of people are taking a bad deal vs the market rate when buying insurance then it isn't really insurance any more. It is a transfer payment a.k.a. welfare. Which is cool and all in the sense that welfare is a social tool that exists. But calling it 'insurance' is needlessly polluting the language. If people expect to hoover money off others then they should be charged more until the expected return of everyone in the insured pool is equal. If the payouts are going to be held equal in the event of a disaster then that means the price of insurance has to vary depending on the risk profile of the customers.

Post reply on HN