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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#961

Post by TeMPOraL »

heavyset_go wrote: post #872
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…

> The real problem is that we're politically/socially unwilling to transfer the risk to the people who are responsible for creating it A lot of the responsibility falls upon governments who are lobbied by developers to zone areas for development that should never have been zoned for development in the first place.

And a lot of the responsibility falls upon the developers that lobby the government for ~. They're not little children begging an adult for something bad for them, where it's the adult that should have known better. They're adults actively seeking out a deal that profits them at expense of people.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#962

Post by prmoustache »

lazystar wrote: post #943
prmoustache wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but OTOH between drugs/addiction, homelessness, traffic, healthcare, consequences of global warming, loneliness epidemy, crime, it is hard to have empathy when you see a whole country complaining of self induced misery.

Are the people that lost everything the same people that caused the addiction crisis, or the traffic crisis, or the crime epidemic, or the lonelinsless epidemic, or the healthcare situation? No. Even if they had homes in Malibu, the ones who caused those situations would not have lost everything.

It is a collective culpability really.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#963

Post by TeMPOraL »

What I learned from this thread is that in the US, apparently, the government is preventing insurance companies from raising the rates, because the rates corresponding to actual risk and damages would be stupidly big, insurers have no choice but to quit the market and then even the wealthiest homeowners can't get insurance at any price.

So what's stopping insurance companies from inventing some kind of fractional insurance? I.e. if insuring a 200sqm house at real rates would be stupidly expensive to anyone but the top 5% wealthiest owners, then instead of quitting the market, why not create a policy that insures the whole house but covers only N sqm from it, priced at real rate / sqm, and it's up to the buyer to decide on N? This way the wealthiest would still have access, everyone else would sort of have it on paper, but it would create space for innovations (and "innovations") in figuring out how to cover the whole thing for regular people - and long-term, incentives for better building and moving elsewhere.

Markets have powerful mechanisms for changing peoples' behavior, but don't work at all in binary "take it or leave it" situations.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#964

Post by spwa4 »

0u89e wrote: post #748
horsawlarway wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hurricanes are mostly just flood damage in the US, and some wind/debris damage exactly like the blown over trees you mention. Houses generally aren't destroyed by hurricanes in the sense of "the storm literally ripped them up", they're made uninhabitable by storm surges (flood). The scary ones are tornados. And tornados do genuinely fuck shit up. Even in those "enlightened" parts of the world you think have proper bu…

Let's not be silly here. European tornadoes are not taking apart houses to the foundations. Ripping off roofs or flipping over cars or even when trees are falling on a tourist tent and killing them in process has nothing to do with how houses are built in USA and nowadays even in UK and elsewhere.

I think the implication is that this is due to differing building codes. Europe builds houses with brick and concrete, that aren't so easily torn apart. That the difference is in housing quality, not in the weather.

Frankly, I think it's about half to both factors.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#966

Post by infecto »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #838
infecto wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point. Its the same as me asking about the drab prisons you live in. Not to mention your cherry picked examples don't really hold up. A 2500sqft home filled with natural gas has a different explosive potential than a small apartment. I am also not sure it makes sense to build homes expecting for a natural gas explosion, not even a measurable risk. You can absolutely build a home that is fire re…

Even single family homes are built from bricks and cement. Even large ones. It's not just gas explosion, it's 'everything', fire, structural rigidity (only ground floor houses are rare, almost non existant here), and well.. they're built to last. https://www.metropolitan.si/kronika/tovornjak-trcil-v-hiso-s... I mean... again.. you could build a home that is "fire resistant", and we do, but most americans don't, as we…

I am not sure what built to last means and not sure if evidence exists that it makes much different over multiple generations. Those SFH built to last as you would say, will still undergo major renovations as technology improves and tastes change. Certainly when in areas that are prone for specific types of disasters, there should be designs to minimize risk but again that happens in the US but often (not always) these major disasters play out in areas of risk but the even is black swan compared to history.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#967

Post by palmfacehn »

rs999gti wrote: post #849
lasermike026 wrote: post #602

Insurance needs to be not-for-profit or a government enterprise. Physical projects and infrastructure should not be started until risk is assessed. Speculators and go-go finance has ought to be constrained. As for myself, I am choosing alternative ways to plan, finance, build, and manage infrastructure project. The current systems is a non-starter for most people under 50.

> Insurance needs to be not-for-profit or a government enterprise. There are many examples of this in the insurer of last resort, which are non-profit or government insurance when the private insurance can no longer cover. Insurers of last resort have the same issues with denying claims and not paying out like the private insurers. If you read the OP article, the only people asking for not-for-profit or government in…

>This may mean some consumers will be priced out of insurance policies.

It will also further incentivize innovation in safety features.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#968

Post by Someone »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #913
daveguy wrote: post #879

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the list of tornadoes the GP refers to in Europe are mostly F0-F2 severity. These don't often cause high fatalities and injuries in the US either (on par with what's reported there). The problem is that tornadoes in the US Midwest and Southeast are often in the F3-F5 range, which are much deadlier. An F3 tornado includes winds to 165 mph, which is considered a category 5 in the hurricane scale. They don't last…

The quantity of energy in an F5 tornado is literally on the same scale as a nuclear weapon, albeit delivered more slowly. Given that context, their ability erase towns should not be that surprising. You can't engineer a practical structure capable of withstanding those kinds of forces.

> quantity of energy […] is […] on the same scale as a nuclear weapon

> albeit delivered more slowly.

> those kinds of forces.

Tornados are very powerful, but if you deliver the same amount of energy over a longer time frame, the forces go down accordingly.

On the other hand, tornados do damage on a relatively smaller path. That may mean they’re as destructive as a nuclear bomb, but within a much smaller affected area.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#969

Post by dartos »

horsawlarway wrote: post #551
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…

Hurricanes are mostly just flood damage in the US, and some wind/debris damage exactly like the blown over trees you mention. Houses generally aren't destroyed by hurricanes in the sense of "the storm literally ripped them up", they're made uninhabitable by storm surges (flood). The scary ones are tornados. And tornados do genuinely fuck shit up. Even in those "enlightened" parts of the world you think have proper bu…

Hurricanes cause tornadoes.

My family lives in Vero Beach and their house and entire street got hit by a tornado.

Vero was hit by 6 during the last hurricane.

Re: Is the world becoming uninsurable?

#970

Post by TrapLord_Rhodo »

tills13 wrote: post #828
TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

brine can be used for mineral extraction.

I'm guessing there's local ecology issues with this? Groundwater seepage, etc. Though that hasn't really stopped fracking so maybe it'll just be a non-issue at the policy level.

No, Tesla does DLE. But they are the only ones who have been able to make it work.
Post reply on HN