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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#771

Post by nsxwolf »

scarby2 wrote: post #760
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real problem is that we're politically/socially unwilling to transfer the risk to the people who are responsible for creating it: Wealthy coastal landowners believe that the cost of home insurance should be about $2000/year. If their properties actually cost $200,000 per year to insure, then that's what they should have to pay! If they don't like it, they should either build something cheaper (that's the other ha…

> If their properties actually cost $200,000 per year to insure, then that's what they should have to pay! If they don't like it, they should either build something cheaper (that's the other half of the product) or move to somewhere with less risk. Or build something adapted to the risk it faces. In my home town there are houses that were built on flood plains that have recently been flooding every 5 years or so. Luc…

I think most people would go for adapting their designs, but insurance companies would have to make that offer first since they ultimately decide which designs are insurable for which amounts.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#772

Post by 8note »

ryao wrote: post #731
smileysteve wrote: post #681

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A forward looking (part of a) solution for Malibu would be the county acquiring and maintaining beach paths every few houses. Prescribed 10' wide fire breaks. This solves the fire problem AND the limited access to a public resource that is common in Malibu. Ideally a permeable surface without any growth, cleared at least 2x a year.

Legal Eagle claims that embers can travel up to 2 miles: https://youtu.be/5h1H36rdprs?t=1m51s That would easily jump a 10' fire break.

houses however, survived with much smaller fire breaks.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yZe-TlYxm9g&pp=ygUkaG91c2VzIHR...

especially for this fire, jumping doesnt mean that everything 2 miles down wind also burned down. buildings that far had the opportunity to burn, and if they dud, had the opportunity to burn their neighbors, and another 2 miles down.

i imagine ember density is more interesting than distance?

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#773

Post by woah »

wrfrmers wrote: post #635
crawftv wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the whole issue. California made it illegal for insurance companies to raise rates, so the insurance companies stop renewals. Leaving everybody uninsured. Homeowners couldn't buy insurance at any price.

Public insurance. For housing, healthcare, maybe even cars (since the coprorate political complex insists that we HAVE to drive everywhere). At some point, we have to accept that the middlemen are siphoning value, not providing any. Vanguard it and let elected admins set the codes.

Public insurance would provide no benefit. The issue in California is that people have built their houses in dangerous areas and have not taken any measures to reduce fire risk. The state has already set limits to how much insurance costs can be increased (from a past generation of economic illiterates who wanted to stop "middlemen siphoning value"). Therefore, insurance companies are just pulling out, which disproves the entire idea that they are "siphoning value", since obviously there is no value there to siphon.

The only thing that public insurance would do is to provide a way for the state to incur another massive unfunded liability. Except, unlike healthcare or pensions which have the somewhat laudable goal of taking care of poor people and old people, this would go to bailing out rich homeowners who made a bad investment of a house in a flammable area and then refused to spend money on fire safety measures, either in their home or their municipality.

Of course these fire zone bag holders are now clamoring for the state to take on their bad investments by pushing conspiracy theories about the evil insurance companies.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#774

Post by rs999gti »

wrfrmers wrote: post #635
crawftv wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the whole issue. California made it illegal for insurance companies to raise rates, so the insurance companies stop renewals. Leaving everybody uninsured. Homeowners couldn't buy insurance at any price.

Public insurance. For housing, healthcare, maybe even cars (since the coprorate political complex insists that we HAVE to drive everywhere). At some point, we have to accept that the middlemen are siphoning value, not providing any. Vanguard it and let elected admins set the codes.

> Public insurance.

That only guarantees you have insurance. It does not guarantee that you will be covered or made whole in an incident or emergency.

See FL Citizen's insurance and other insurances of last resort as examples.

What really needs to happen is premiums go up with the cost of risk. But this also means pricing people out of homes, vehicles, businesses, etc. And no politician will allow this.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#775

Post by Modified3019 »

epolanski wrote: post #437
tobyhinloopen wrote: post #283

American, living in area prone to natural disasters: "Is the WHOLE WORLD becoming uninsurable?" The answer is obviously "no" since there are other parts of the world that don't live on a hurricane highway nor build houses made from firewood in an area prone to wildfires.

I'm always baffled at the fact that Americans don't build houses out of bricks. I read those arguments of the advantages this method has, especially financial ones, but to me it's nonsense considering that it would prevent an endless number of problems that cause the total loss. I still remember when New Orleans was hit with by Katrina, large parts of the suburbs where houses where made by wood and plastic where dest…

If I’m choosing building materials to try and resist disaster, I’d just go straight to making a monolithic dome.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#776

Post by woah »

doug_durham wrote: post #669
sandworm101 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wildfires are not the problem. They happen all the time without causing billion-dollar insurance claims. Insurance is always assets x risk. The issue is expensive flamable housing (assets) in a wildfire area (risk). We ask for trouble when we create million-dollar wooden houses surrounded by manicured gardens in desert enviroments. And build on a slope facing pervailing winds. The answer is concrete/brick houses with…

That doesn't align with the reality of these areas. To get insurance in these areas you have to demonstrate that you have created a defensible space around your house. This is enforced by local fire department inspections. I know this because I live near a fire prone area. Despite these things the area still burned. The problem isn't "lawns" or "wooden houses". In the case of the LA fires you would have had the burne…

The reality is the fires didn't make it far into the city grid sections of LA proper. This is because these areas have less flammable material, and are more defensible.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#777

Post by [deleted] »

tobyhinloopen wrote: post #283

American, living in area prone to natural disasters: "Is the WHOLE WORLD becoming uninsurable?" The answer is obviously "no" since there are other parts of the world that don't live on a hurricane highway nor build houses made from firewood in an area prone to wildfires.

[deleted]

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#778

Post by ikrenji »

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…

why not have a 100 feet buffer clear of vegetation around housing? seems like an easy fix.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#779

Post by rs999gti »

ryao wrote: post #724
chillfox wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s possible that solve the hurricane problems with proper building regulations and lower the risk of huge wildfires with controlled burning. But the US as always prefers to pretend that there’s nothing to be done when other parts of the world has figured it out. We have cyclones here similar to the hurricanes in the US and usually it just blows over some trees maybe causes a power outage. The absolute worst I have…

I recall reading somewhere that the Indians had done controlled burns before Europeans settled in the parts of the U.S. where fires are now a problem. European settlers who displaced them did not continue the controlled burns and then fires became a problem. Apparently, if you do regular controlled burns, the severity of fires is reduced and healthy trees survive it. When you do not, when fires do occur, all trees di…

> The truth is that the rich diversity and stunning landscapes of places like Yosemite and other natural environments in the United States were intentionally cultivated by Native Americans for thousands of years. And their greatest tool was fire.

https://www.history.com/news/native-american-wildfires

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#780

Post by onlypassingthru »

0u89e wrote: post #751
ryao wrote: post #724

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recall reading somewhere that the Indians had done controlled burns before Europeans settled in the parts of the U.S. where fires are now a problem. European settlers who displaced them did not continue the controlled burns and then fires became a problem. Apparently, if you do regular controlled burns, the severity of fires is reduced and healthy trees survive it. When you do not, when fires do occur, all trees di…

I recall reading the same thing, however I do recall that they were East coast native Indians, that cleared oak tree forests as a hunting grounds, so completelly unrelated to the problem in California. The story was about native land rights and if such looking after their hunting grounds can be seen as claims on property rights, which Indians did not knew as a concept, so it is a moot point anyway. The issues that pl…

Yosemite NP, especially the iconic valley, looked vastly different when the Europeans first arrived in the nineteenth century. It was sparsely forested and had lots of meadows. After a 150 years of no controlled burns, it's a dense forest down there. It turns out the native peoples were managing the forest, after all.
Post reply on HN