Is the world becoming uninsurable?

Post by Ray20 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 10:20 AM UTC

fishstock25 wrote: post #365

nobodywillobsrv wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government banned insurance companies from raising prices. They used tax payer money to subsidize this for a while which increase home prices. Eventually insurance companies stopped offering insurance. When state actors even dabble in socialism disasters happen people die.

> The government banned insurance companies from raising prices. They used tax payer money to subsidize this for a while which increase home prices. Eventually insurance companies stopped offering insurance. Obviously. Such a move by the government is just plain stupid. > When state actors even dabble in socialism disasters happen people die. No need to overgeneralize. Not every stupid move is immediately "socialism"…

Post by HPsquared » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 10:20 AM UTC

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #212

altairprime wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that brick is much worse than wood for wind-stoked wildfires; think ‘explosive fiery-hot shrapnel’ rather than just catching on fire like wood. (This is not a contradiction of your point, just a useful related factoid for the modern era.)

Think about what you’ve just written… you’re saying that a stone building is less safe than a wood building in a fire. Have we seen any stone cities burn down lately? Because I haven’t seen London burn down since they replaced all the wooden houses with brick in 1666.

Post by lm28469 » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 10:22 AM UTC

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #381

igravious wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+4°C is to the upper end of projections if it did (which is not probable) happen it'd take until the end of the century if we were to get there the entire world will be a different place; everything will have advanced so we won't be insuring our present world with our current knowledge and current tech but a future world with future knowledge and future tech

Not everything advances. We still have houses built in the 1800s/1900s that are usable in predictable/similar climates/circumstances. A changing climate changes that. Sure, we could bulldoze everything and build new stuff that can handle a +2C, +3C, +4C, etc... world, but that's expensive.

Post by snacksmcgee » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 10:26 AM UTC

School-Cotton wrote: post #222

rewgs wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurance should not be for profit, and things like e.g. State Farm suddenly cancelling people's renters/fire insurance just two weeks before the fires (I am one of those people) are what people hate about insurance. No one is arguing that insurance is bad at risk assessment, but rather how they wield their proficiency with it.

Why does State Farm in particular have a moral obligation to insure you against fire if it’s not profitable for them to do so? To pick random examples of unrelated companies, McDonalds or SpaceX would also refuse to insure you against fire. Why should people hate State Farm for this reason, but not McDonalds or SpaceX? If State Farm didn’t exist and the state ran insurance instead, and were willing to insure all come…

Post by snacksmcgee » Fri, Jan 17, 2025, 10:27 AM UTC

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.