271–280 of 1001 posts
If something is worth doing, it's worth doing whether you have insurance or not.
In my opinion, the amount of resources spent on buying insurance would, in almost every case, be better spent on prevention rather than after the fact mitigation.
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…
They don't, but they have the courtesy of giving myself and thousands of others a proper heads up. Perhaps any heads up? They quite literally just dropped me, no email, no letter, no nothing. This type of thing should be given 3 months minimum.
> 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?
Alright, you just lost me, not even bothering to read the rest of your post. To answer your utterly moronic question: because they aren't in the business of insurance. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.
Insurance is such a crutch for some people, but it shouldn't be. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing whether you have insurance or not. In my opinion, the amount of resources spent on buying insurance would, in almost every case, be better spent on prevention rather than after the fact mitigation.
You're forgetting about insurance fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
People choose to smoke, overeat, engage in risky activities that can cause injury near and long term (Rock climbing, riding motorcycles, football, MMA). Why should society pay for these choices?
Injuries also hurt, so it's not like people don't have other disincentives to avoid injury aside from the price. This isn't the case in other areas, where it's purely a monetary penalty and thus removing that penalty results in way more of that thing taking place.
Insurance is such a crutch for some people, but it shouldn't be. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing whether you have insurance or not. In my opinion, the amount of resources spent on buying insurance would, in almost every case, be better spent on prevention rather than after the fact mitigation.
Case in point, my partner was diagnosed with a very, very, very rare terminal cancer at 32. Insurance turned out to be a great investment for us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been trying to talk to people locally, a place with lots of homes built in the woodland-urban interface, about the risks of climate change and how insurance will have to change. 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 compa…
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.
And what is fire insurance? Is that something unique to CA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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? They don't, but they have the courtesy of giving myself and thousands of others a proper heads up. Perhaps any heads up? They quite literally just dropped me, no email, no letter, no nothing. This type of thing should be given 3 months minimum. > To pick random examples of unrelated compani…
No way that happened, the state would not allow it.
https://ktla.com/news/california/state-farm-to-non-renew-720...
>It’s important to note that nonrenewal is not canceling. Customers affected by the decision will retain coverage until their current contract is up. The company said those impacted will be notified between July 3 and Aug. 20.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Resistant homes will pay nearly the same prices as everyone else. but this means the insurance company is mispricing (or is being forced to misprice) the risk of resistant homes. In theory, when correct pricing happens, these resistant homes should face less claims, and thus the premiums paid on them is high profit margin; ala, the customer is a good one, and the insurer should persue this customer more than anothe…
This does happen, it's just done at neighborhood level. That makes some sense, the biggest fire risk factor for your house is probably your neighbor's house burning down.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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? They don't, but they have the courtesy of giving myself and thousands of others a proper heads up. Perhaps any heads up? They quite literally just dropped me, no email, no letter, no nothing. This type of thing should be given 3 months minimum. > To pick random examples of unrelated compani…
I don’t think it was moronic at all; the point is to get to the bottom of what assumptions and axioms you’re using. What is the moral framework according to which you claim State Farm has wronged you. Only then can we judge whether your claim is in fact correct.
> because they aren't in the business of insurance
So, if I understand your implicit argument correctly, it seems to be that anyone who sells a product be forced to sell it to anyone, no matter how costly it is to them.
There’s no McDonalds in Barrow, Alaska, presumably because running a McDonalds there would be prohibitively expensive. Is that immoral? Should they have an obligation to open a store there?